Examination of the development of earthquake disasters response efforts in Türkiye through the examples of the 1893 Malatya, 1971 and 2003 Bingöl and 2020 Sivrice earthquakes

Türkiye is a country that is frequently exposed to various types of disasters due to its geographical location. The structure of its landforms, climate diversity and the mobile structure of fault lines increase the frequency and impact of disasters. Earthquakes are among the top three of these disasters due to the presence of important and highly active fault lines. The North and East Anatolian Fault Zones (NAFZ and DAFZ), which meet the westward movement of the Anatolian Plate, constitute the most important sources of earthquake hazard in Turkey. Earthquakes occurring on these fault lines cause economic and socio-cultural damages to rural and urban life and cause loss of life and property. In particular, the two major earthquakes that occurred on February 6, 2023 on the DAFZ centered on Kahramanmaraş have re-emphasized the seismic reality of Turkey and the importance of disaster management in a devastating way. In this context, the importance of determination of earthquake hazard and mitigation of earthquake damages studies in Türkiye is clear. With in the scope of this study, four major earthquakes in 1893 Malatya, 1971 Bingöl, 2003 Bingöl and 2020 Sivrice, which occurred along the DAFZ and were evaluated in the same class in terms of magnitude and destructiveness, were compared in terms of disaster response and disaster management. As a result of the analysis, we will see the effect of the functioning of the response process in the 1893 Malatya earthquake, which is the earliest of these four earthquakes, and the 2020 Sivrice earthquake, which is the last one, and the effect of the studies and technological developments in this field on reducing the destructiveness of the earthquake as it approaches the present day. In this thesis, the disaster response studies carried out in these earthquakes were examined through written and visual sources. In line with this examination, the development of earthquake response activities in disaster management over the years has been interpreted in the context of the management of response activities, the number and expertise of personnel involved in search and rescue activities, material supply and logistics developments. Both the pre-disaster risk reduction studies, the management of the disaster process, and the post-disaster recovery studies prove Turkey's development in disaster management from history to the present day. When the 1893 Malatya earthquake occurred, Turkey's disaster management efforts were carried out without an institutional structure and with very limited means. Only military units and local people took part in the search and rescue operations. The lack of equipment used in search and rescue operations under the conditions of the period, the weakness of the infrastructure in transportation to the disaster area and most importantly, the fact that the communication tools that would enable the aid resources to reach faster were not yet developed caused the disaster operations to be insufficient in meeting the needs in the response process. Post-earthquake recovery efforts lasted for one year and most of the needs of the earthquake victims could not be met. In this direction, it is seen that in the years when the disaster occurred, there was no understanding of disaster management yet and the post-disaster studies were only reactive and for crisis management purposes. There were no preventive studies or systems in place before the disaster. In the 1971 Bingöl earthquake, although the conditions of the period were more advantageous than the 1893 Malatya earthquake, the efforts made were again insufficient. The date of this disaster also coincides with the time when civil defense organizations started to be structured. Although the main purpose of civil defense was planned to protect the public from the threat of war, civil defense units took active roles in the field for the first time in the earthquake and rescued the public from the destruction caused by natural disasters. After this earthquake, the areas of duty of civil defense were expanded. With the participation of aid materials from various countries and a first aid team consisting of 10 people from Germany, the activities continued in international cooperation. The response efforts were limited by manpower and the means available, and time ran out. Crane, bucket and heavy equipment operators, who contributed greatly to the debris removal and search and rescue operations, were insufficient both in number and in capacity to cope with heavily damaged structures. Another factor that caused the response efforts to be delayed was communication. Radio systems were not yet as developed as they are today at the time of the earthquake. Therefore, the damage to the telephone lines after the earthquake and the fact that the telephone was not widely used caused disruptions in communication. For this reason, aid arrived late to the region and the number of casualties increased due to the delay in the response process. In addition to all these, civil defense teams lacked training and experience in disaster response. This situation caused confusion in task distribution and crisis management. These confusions in the response process led to a change in the understanding of disaster response in Türkiye and pointed to the necessity of carrying out the activities in this field under the leadership of a single institution in the following years. When the 2003 Bingöl earthquake occurred, disaster management was in the process of transition to an institutional structure. The main reason for this institutional transition was the inadequacy of the institutional structure in the 1999 Marmara earthquake. In the 2003 Bingöl earthquake, state-affiliated institutions and local administration carried out effective field work in accordance with the disaster management structure. The number of ambulances, fire brigades and vehicles involved in search and rescue operations was increased and personnel support was provided at the same rate. Thus, the treatment of the wounded who were pulled out from under the rubble was carried out faster. The number of radios used between teams was increased and the communication process was carried out in a more coordinated manner. The use of technological tools such as heat-sensitive cameras and sensitive listening devices in search operations under the rubble accelerated rescue operations. The use of developing technology in disaster management activities has yielded effective results in critical tasks. However, with this earthquake, it was understood that the main reason for the devastating earthquake was the unimplemented building inspection law. This resulted in public buildings and schools being among the most severely damaged structures in the earthquake. The neglect of risk mitigation and earthquake preparedness efforts in previous years showed the necessity of stricter inspection policies. Although the 2003 Bingöl Earthquake showed that institutional progress had been made in disaster response, this problem in the field of building inspection also emphasized the importance of conducting public awareness raising activities in disaster management in terms of damage reduction. In addition, in this earthquake, the effect of effective use of technology in the field of disaster management in reducing the loss of life and property was clearly seen. This situation has prepared the ground for the dissemination of the use of technology in this direction. In the 2020 earthquake in Sivrice (a district of Elâzığ), disaster management was carried out effectively through the use of advanced technological systems. Established in 2009, AFAD carried out post-earthquake response efforts in a planned and organized manner. With the support of advanced technological infrastructure, AFAD identified the location of the earthquake in full time and provided rapid response support to the relevant region. Emergency and crisis management plans were put into effect and tasks were distributed among teams. The widespread use of advanced application systems and communication devices accelerated the response efforts by ensuring the communication of institutions in charge of disaster management. The importance of the use of advanced equipment such as heat sensitive cameras, sensitive listening devices and locator systems in rescue operations was demonstrated. Temporary shelter areas were set up in a short time to meet the needs of earthquake victims, and prefabricated houses and tents were provided to those left homeless. In addition, psychological support was provided to earthquake victims. Approximately 5000 personnel trained in this field took part in the response activities. While the 2020 Sivrice earthquake was a good example of the remedial results of the effective use of technology in disaster management, it also showed that the problem of structural safety still persists. This earthquake clearly shows us that disaster management in Turkey is progressing with technology, but the risk reduction and preparedness process needs to be restructured. In these earthquakes, it is seen that disaster response methods have evolved over time and the general disaster approach has focused more on risk reduction and preparation processes over time, unlike the traditional response method. In the 1893 Malatya earthquake, the recovery process after the disaster, which the people tried to cope with their own means, is carried out in an institutional framework today thanks to the conditions and technological opportunities that have developed over the years. When the process is evaluated in terms of technological and institutional developments, the following result can be obtained.In 2009, after the establishment of AFAD, disaster management started to be carried out under the leadership of AFAD. One of the most remarkable developments in the field of disaster management is the inter-institutional coordination in response activities and the use of advanced equipment. In addition, these activities carried out under the leadership of AFAD not only cover pre- and post-disaster interventions but also play a role in meeting the psychological support needs of disaster victims. AFAD's intervention activities are carried out by professional field teams under expert management. Advanced equipment and sophisticated devices used in search and rescue operations have accelerated critical processes and saved more lives. In these intervention activities, search dogs trained to find people under the rubble, radio communication devices that ensure communication and coordination, construction machinery and advanced technological devices are used to move quickly in the field in heavy lifting and transportation operations where manpower is not enough. Assistance activities to meet sheltering and logistical needs are carried out under the control of various institutions and prepared in advance. In 2014, Turkey Disaster Response Plan (TAMP) was prepared in order to organize the disaster response process and to distribute tasks among institutions. Inter-agency cooperation and distribution of tasks in the response process has yielded effective results in preventing the confusion experienced in previous disasters. The details of this plan are explained in detail in the thesis. This plan for the planned and systematic execution of disaster management is one of the best examples of the successful execution of the response process in the 2020 Sivrice earthquake. Today, the management of intervention activities in the field of disaster management by a single center and the active use of technological developments in this field have enabled Türkiye to be more successful in disaster management. However, the persistence of the problem of building inspection has increased the risk of disasters caused by poor quality building stocks and directly affected the loss of lives. Another ongoing problem in the field of disaster management in our country is the preparedness of the society against disasters. The most basic common problem of 1893 Malatya, 1971 Bingöl and 2003 Bingöl earthquakes is the loss of lives caused by the buildings constructed without engineering services and without inspection. The collapse of these buildings, which were not resistant to tremors, made search and rescue operations difficult and caused loss of time. This situation shows that building systems are still not effective throughout the country. On the other hand, lack of awareness and knowledge of the public about disasters causes unpreparedness for disasters and increased workload in the response process. The 1971 and 2003 Bingöl earthquakes dramatically demonstrated the lack of awareness of the society on this issue. Thanks to AFAD's awareness-raising efforts to overcome this deficiency, the response process in the 2020 Sivrice earthquake was more controlled and faster compared to other years. Therefore, in order to avoid similar scenarios, disaster risk reduction efforts should be increased, building inspections should be expanded and the society should be aware of this issue. Türkiye's geological structure and the disaster risk it carries is the immutable reality of our country. Although we cannot change the earthquake reality of Türkiye, we can reduce the damages caused by earthquakes by increasing the studies on disaster management. The earthquakes clearly reveal the level, capacity and inadequacy of our country in disaster management. Technological developments play a key role in disaster management. Unmanned aerial vehicles, thermal cameras, today's mobile communication infrastructure and advanced construction equipment used in search and rescue operations have facilitated the disaster management process. Developments in disaster management have a mitigating effect on the devastating consequences of disasters. Especially with the establishment of AFAD and activation of TAMP, the response process has gained a more systematic structure and significant developments have been experienced in disaster management. It is necessary to increase the efforts to minimize the loss of life and property and to find a solution to the structural security problem that still persists today.