MARMARA EARTHQUAKE EMERGENCY RECOVERY PROJECT (MEER) PERMANENT HOUSING SITE SELECTION CRITERIAS and IMPLEMENTATIONS
MARMARA EARTHQUAKE EMERGENCY RECOVERY PROJECT (MEER) PERMANENT HOUSING SITE SELECTION CRITERIAS and IMPLEMENTATIONS
Mehmet
TUNÇER1
1 Prof., Dr., Cankaya University, Fac. Of Architecture,
City and Regional
Planning Department, Balgat Campus, Ankara,
E-mail: Mehmettuncer56@gmail.com
ABSTRACT:
Site selection processes for permanent housing within
the context of Marmara Earthquake Emergency Recovery (MEER) Project, carried out
by mainly two institutions, namely, World Bank (WB) and Ministry of Public
Works and Resettlement (MoPWS). The aim of this paper; to summarize the World
Bank studies, including site selection criteria, different alternative sites
and recommended ones.
Content of the paper is to describe the terrible
situation after mass destruction of 1999 Marmara Earthquake, studies after the earthquake
in a short time period finalized and reported. Ministry of Public Works and
Resettlement studies ended up with some Structural Planning Reports and 1/25 000
scale planning drawings, without any clear explanation for site selection
criteria and reasons behind selected and planned sites. However, in İzmit,
Adapazarı and Gölcük both studies gave almost same results since selected sites
concerned, except Ferizli in Sakarya province.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. DETAILED ASSESSMENT BY SETTLEMENTS
When 17 August Marmara Earthquake happened,
preliminary damage assessment processes had started immediately after the
relief operations, synchronous with debris removal works (Tercan, B., 2001,
pp.114) According to the results of preliminary damage assessment, the initial
tents erected to meet the urgent shelter need, field hospitals and kitchens
serving hot meals were set up.
After the preliminary damage assessment, definite
damage assessment works started and took about 15 days as preliminary damage assessment.
Definite damage assessment results were listed and conveyed
to the citizens as written announcement for one week.
Several types of natural disaster (especially
earthquakes) create a sudden and massive demand for alternative housing, as a
result of the widespread destruction traditional and illegally constructed
buildings.
The Ministry of Public Works and Settlement has
establishment a crisis center after the 17 August Marmara Earthquake. According
to the data taken from damage assessment groups, large scale temporary
residential works started.
By the help of General Directorate of Disaster
Affairs, General Directorate of Technical Research and İmplementation, Gn. Dir.
Of Bank of Provinces, Municipalities and the Governors were empowered to
organize the preliminary works for site selection. All of those works were
carried according to the 16th Article of Disaster Law (No: 7269-1051).
After the 1999 Marmara Earthquake, 8590 victims were
placed in public facilities. The construction of prefabricated houses was
decided in September 1999 and it is planned to be delivered on 30 November
1999. Only 33% of the permanent houses planned
to be completed in December 2000 were completed in September 2001 two years
after the earthquake.
Some of the houses were planned and built under the responsibility of the Prime Ministry Project Implementation Unit (PM-PIU) and some of them under the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement.
Due to the fact that there is no structure to
coordinate the selection and construction process of the settlements in the
disaster area, there have been problems between institutions and organizations.
Some political pressures and preferences have influenced the location of
permanent housing areas.
2.1. Izmit
Izmit Permanent Housing Site found suitable by almost
all parties, these are namely, the Municipality, the Min. of PW & S. and World
Bank as well. The site is identified by its physical appropriateness (basically
geology, topography and accessibility). It can also be said that this site reflects
the resident’s current preferences (i.e. “earthquake secure” site)
Gundogdu site is more closer to the city center, approximately
5 km, than other alternative sites and relatively has more access to existing
infrastructure.
The site for new development is outside the existing
current development plan of İzmit. Thus, full range of technical studies need
to be undertaken starting from surveying for topographical base maps. New
development plans are to be prepared.
It should be noted here that these municipal projects
existed prior to the earthquake and reflected the fast growth of the city and
the region due to the location of large scale economic activities. İzmit’s
projects can be utilized to alleviate the housing problems encountered due to
the earthquake, through improved financing and spending – up the processes
associated with their completion. MEER should consider these projects for
possible support (Atik, S., and others 1999)
Figure 1. Permanent Housing Areas in Marmara Region (Source: Ministry of Public Works and Settlement).
2.1.1 Possible affects to macro-form
Gundogdu site is very close to existing settled area
since physical distance amongst them concerned. but at the same time, far since
economic and time distances concerned. The main reason of this is TEM motorway
which divide the already developed and developable areas and thus, creates a
considerable important urban spaces integration problem.
2.2 Gölcük
Due to the geography of the area, in Gölcük there are
a few alternative sites to replace North Gölcük where almost % 45 of buildings
collapsed. Southern part of Gölcük offers suitable sites for resettlement. The
site proposed and preliminarily found suitable is the site located adjacent to
the Southern borders of the city. This site already has a development plan,
designating this site as a residential zone. The plan needs to be revised
according to new densities and building regulations to be formulated.
Southern Gölcük including two sub-districts of
Şirinköy and Saraylı are suitable for development because of non-alluvial soil
condition and the public desire to resettle in these areas. However, soil
investigation should be undertaken thoroughly in advance of any final decision.
In terms of infrastructure, the site has access to power lines and city water
network. Both off-site and on-site infrastructure need to be constructed.
2.2.1 Possible affects to macro-form
Saraylı and Şirinköy sites as it is mentioned before
are only alternatives for reconstruction and urban expansion. Because of this,
those areas already planned by the Municipality. Therefore, all expected
impacts had been foreseen in urban development plans.
It is expected that relatively low density development
will affect to other surrounding settlements. On the other hand, a
transformation from rural type settlement pattern to urban one should be
waited. Therefore, urban development plans at different appropriate scales have
to consider these possibilities.
2.2.2 Possible transportation systems
To connect the new resettlement areas to state ways
and though state ways to other settlements of sub-region will be major issue to
be solved. Tree possible connection are proposed in Master Plan. It is proposed
with this study that a gate sort of spatial arrangements at connection points
should also be realized. There is no possibility for other modes of
transportation other than road system.
2.2.3 Off - site infrastructure
As being similar to other project towns, off-site
infrastructure are not exist in Southern Gölcük. Only available infrastructure
facility is high voltage energy transmission line
2.3 Adapazarı
In Adapazarı three alternative sites for permanent
housing areas evaluated in “Present Situation & Reconstruction Needs For
İzmit, Gölcük, Yalova & Adapazarı” Report” which was prepared for World
Bank (UTTA and Belda, 1999).
These areas are partially designated as future
potential development zones within the existing planning studies of Adapazarı
Municipality and lie to north and east of the existing settlement (Figure 2).
These areas are :
·
Poyrazlar Lake and its vicinity (ZONE I)
·
Karaman-Karapınar-Resüllüdiven villages and surroundings (ZONE II)
·
Çökekler-Karaköy villages and their surroundings (ZONE III)
Figure 2. MEER Area In Adapazari Environmental Plan (1/25 000) (Schema by Tuncer, M., Atik, S. 1999)
From those, Karaman-Karapinar-Resulludiven villages and surroundings
(II. ZONE) are recommended by the mentioned Report due to following reasons;
·
The site is large
enough to absorb housing need.
·
There is consensus
on the site in between central and local government and public (Adapazarı
citizens)
·
Development plan
of the site is already prepared by Adapazarı Municipality and is awaiting
approval.
·
Soil condition and
geological formation is investigated by Sakarya University and the results of
the study show that the area is suitable for resettlement.
As a final decision, the Zone II (Karaman-Karapınar-Resulludiven) had
been chosen by Prime Ministry Project Coordination Unit (PCU) and MoPWR as
permanent Housing Sites. From those, it is decided that Resulludiven (Camili)
locality will be developed by (PCU).
2.3.1 Possible affects to macro-form of the city
Permanent housing in Adapazarı is far from down town approximately 12
km. Population holding capacity of permanent housing sites are about 60 000.
This figure indicates that those areas could not only be assumed as earthquake
originated housing recovery sites, but a new settlement in sub-urban form
(Present Situation & Reconstruction Needs for İzmit, Gölcük, Yalova &
Adapazarı Marmara Earthquake Recontruction Project, 1999).
Intervening area in between settled Adapazarı and
proposed permanent housing sites including MEER’s one, are kept mainly as
agricultural land in Structural Plan prepared by Municipality of Greater
Adapazarı.
Figure 3. MEER Area in Adapazari Structural Planning
Principles) (Schema by Tuncer, M., Atik, S. 1999)
The idea is also shared by Consultants, the alluvial
land will serve to agriculture and only a narrow strop along the main
transportation should be planned very as very low density semi-rural
characteristics sub-urban area. So approximately 12 km. long and almost 8 km.
width area in between settled and new Adapazarı will be recognized as country
side and forest lands. It is believed that this pattern will give a harmony to
urban rural land uses.
2.4 Düzce
All damage assessment works were finished at the Marmara Region, 0n 12
November 1999, another destructive earthquake occurred in Bolu-Düzce Provinces.
Düzce was not to subject to site selection processes after 17 th August
1999 Marmara Earthquake because of its slightly damages. However, 12 th
November Earthquake caused unfortunately, huge damages in Düzce and surrounding
settlements. Site selection process started by MoPWR.
MEER Site in Düzce located in northeastern part of the settled area
where those hilly areas provide geologically suitable conditions for
construction.
Permanent housing site is also investigated in course of “Bolu Province
socio-economical, and Spatial Development Scheme at 1/100 000 scale” (UTTA;
Bolu ÇDP, 1999) and “Düzce Structural Plan at 1/25 000 scale” (UTTA; Düzce ÇDP,
1999). It is found on those studies that northeast part of town is suitable for
urban expansion.
Therefore, Düzce structural plan proposed a chain neighborhood unit on
those hilly areas due to locational advantages of their like soil
characteristics as less fertile agricultural land (not - alluvial), suitable
geological condition, out of irrigation systems, proximity urban services and
others. MEER site is one of the mentioned new housing sites.
Roads will be major connection system in between Düzce and new permanent
housing areas. The structural plan proposes a primary road in between D -100
state highway and Düzce - Akçakoca state road, this axis will also serve to
MEER’ site like others.
One other possibility in long range development, is a
light rail system. General Directorate of State Railways, Seaports and Airports
State planned Arifiye - Ereğli rail road which pass near to Düzce. A
feasibility study could be conducted to seek possibility to extend the
mentioned line and/or a new light rail line from Düzce to new urban areas.
3. RESULTS of THE PERMANENT HOUSING SITE SELECTION
In World Bank study, it is toughed that in identifying
new sites for housing development, it should be recognized that these sites
will not only cater for the housing needs but will also provide social
amenities as well as attracting new developments within their surrounding
areas.
It is also found in fields studies that all
municipalities wish to locate new housing as “self sufficient” entities away
from the existing settlement. Mostly, these areas are hilly sites considered to
be geologically suitable. This preference reflects the preferences of the
residents also.
The possible sites to be selected, since far from
existing settled areas, underline the importance of physical, economic and
social-institutional considerations. Though the below listed criteria the pinpoint
the most important issues to be considered.
1. Physical Criteria is the appropriateness of the
site with respect to;
·
Size and
Accessibility
·
Topography
·
Geological
formation and soil conditions
2. Economic Criteria in the long term can prove to be
more important than the physical criteria; These are;
·
Ownership status
(also a social-institutional criterion)
·
Access to
amenities, to work places
·
Costs of
development, including on and off site infrastructure and construction
·
Potential for
future development
·
Environmental
considerations (also a physical criterion)
3. Social – Institutional Criteria reflects the
preferences of the target population and seeks the establishment of a
harmonious settlement;
·
Opportunities for
establishing social-centers for community development.
·
Willingness by the
authorities (local and central) to cooperate and support at all levels of
development
Above criteria are also employed to evaluate selected
sites to find possible action in development plan making and urban design.
Structural Plan level studies are especially needed
for large size settlements like Greater İzmit and Greater Adapazarı since their
size and differentiated spatial entities concerned.
At macro scale (1/25 000) level main importance will
be given to followings in each Project town;
·
Review existing
urban structure and develop planning measures for future urban macro-form and spatial
integration concerning site selection of permanent housing sites. Formulate possible urban planning decisions to
achieve an integrated urban macro-form.
·
Review and make
some preliminary proposals for possible transportation systems in
between existing urban fabric and new settlements , including modes and routes,
·
Consideration of off-site
Infrastructure like water, waste water, storm water drainage,
electricity and telecommunication systems into urban planning
Planning of “Permanent Housing Sites (PHS)” in the
context of “Marmara Earthquake Emergency Reconstruction Project (MEER)”, should
not only be considered a classical planning routine, but also should be evaluated
as a complex urban decentralization process.
In all 4 settlements, the sites identified for “new
housing” or “new settlements” more appropriately are mostly away from the city
center (5-20 km.) except for the case of Gölcük. All of these sites are identified
with priority given to the factor of “safety” and reflects the resident’s
current physiological situation.
In the event of a selection of any of these sites,
there will be important costs associated with “new” on and off-site
infrastructure and new social amenities.
The important is issue here is the “suitability” of
these sites not only in terms of geology and topography but also in terms of
economic and social considerations.
After the completion of site selection period, The
General Directorate of Disaster Affairs has completed the geological and
geo-technical studies on the urban development areas assigned by the General
Directorate of Technical Research and Implementation (Tercan, 2001, p. 130).
Below Tables indicates that besides spatial conditions
and/or man-made structures and their advantages or disadvantages, selected sites
will give sense of secure lives to their settlers. The key word in here is to
make appropriate and disaster sensitive design to those urban parts to increase
sense living in security.
MARMARA
EARTHQUAKE EMERGENY RECONTRUCTION PROJECT (MEER) PERMANENT HOUSING SITE
ASSESMENT CRITERIA
Physical
Criteria is the appropriateness of the site with respect to;
Table 1. Physical Criterias
TOWNS
|
|
İZMİT |
ADAPAZARI |
GÖLCÜK |
DÜZCE |
CUMAOVASI |
GÖLYAKA |
KÖRFEZ |
GEBZE |
K.MÜRSEL |
|
·
Size |
GOOD |
GOOD |
PROBLEMATIC |
GOOD |
GOOD |
GOOD |
GOOD |
GOOD |
GOOD |
|
.
Accessibility |
NEW
CONNNECTION NEEDED |
NEW
CONNECTION NEEDED |
NEW
CONNNECTION NEEDED |
NEW
CONNNECTION NEEDED |
GOOD |
NEW
CONNNECTION NEEDED |
NEW
CONNNECTION NEEDED |
NEW
CONNNECTION NEEDED |
NEW
CONNNECTION NEEDED |
|
·
Topography |
GOOD |
GOOD |
PROBLEMATIC |
GOOD |
GOOD |
GOOD |
PROBLEMATIC |
GOOD |
GOOD |
|
·
Geological formation and soil conditions |
SUITABLE |
SUITABLE |
SUITABLE |
SUITABLE |
SUITABLE |
SUITABLE |
SUITABLE |
SUITABLE |
SUITABLE |
|
·
Vegetation, etc. |
POOR |
RICH |
RICH |
RICH |
VACANT
URBAN PLOT |
RICH |
POOR |
RICH |
RICH |
(Source: Present Situation &
Reconstruction Needs for İzmit, Gölcük, Yalova & Adapazarı Marmara
Earthquake Reconstruction Project, 1999.)
Economic
Criteria in the long term can prove to be e more important than the physical
criteria; These are;
Table 2. Economic Criterias
TOWNS
|
|
İZMİT |
ADAPAZARI |
GÖLCÜK |
DÜZCE |
CUMAOVASI |
GÖLYAKA |
KÖRFEZ |
GEBZE |
K.MÜRSEL |
|
·
Access to amenities, to work places |
EASY
ACCESS |
FAR
FROM SETTLED AREA |
RELATIVELY
FAR FROM SETTLED AREA |
RELATIVELY
FAR FROM SETTLED AREA |
EASY
ACCESS |
EASY
ACCESS |
FAR
FROM SETTLED AREA |
EASY
ACCESS |
EASY
ACCESS |
|
·
Costs of development, including on and off site infrastructure and
construction |
RELATIVELY
COSTLY |
RELATIVELY
COSTLY |
COSTLY |
RELATIVELY
COSTLY |
LESS
COSTLY |
COSTLY |
COSTLY |
LESS
COSTLY |
LESS
COSTLY |
|
·
Potential for future development |
HIGH |
VERY
HIGH |
NO
POTENTIAL |
HIGH |
HIGH |
HIGH |
NO
POTENTIAL |
NO
POTENTIAL |
HIGH |
|
·
Environmental considerations (also a physical criterion) |
SUITABLE |
SUITABLE |
SUITABLE |
SUITABLE |
SUITABLE |
SUITABLE |
SUITABLE |
SUITABLE |
SUITABLE |
(Source: Present Situation & Reconstruction Needs for
İzmit, Gölcük, Yalova & Adapazarı Marmara Earthquake Reconstruction
Project, 1999)
Social –
Institutional Criteria reflects the preferences of the target population and
seeks the establishment of a harmonious settlement;
Table 3. Social – Institutional Criterias
TOWNS
|
|
IZMIT |
ADAPAZARI |
GÖLCÜK |
DÜZCE |
CUMAOVASI |
GÖLYAKA |
KÖRFEZ |
GEBZE |
K.MÜRSEL |
|
·
Opportunities for establishing social-centers for community development. |
HIGH |
VERY
HIGH |
MODERATE |
MODERATE |
VERY
HIGH |
VERY
HIGH |
MODERATE |
MODERATE |
VERY
HIGH |
|
·
Willingness by the authorities (local and central) to cooperate and support
at all levels of development |
HIGH |
VERY
HIGH |
VERY
HIGH |
HIGH |
HIGH |
HIGH |
HIGH |
HIGH |
VERY
HIGH |
(Source: Present Situation & Reconstruction Needs
for İzmit, Gölcük, Yalova & Adapazarı Marmara Earthquake Reconstruction
Project, 1999.)
REFERENCES
Atik, S., Akyel, O., Yazgaç, M., Uysal, O.,
Şerafettinoğolu, F. (1999). “Present Situation and Reconstruction Needs For
İzmit, Gölcük, Yalova & Adapazarı”, Marmara Earthquake Recontruction
Project.
Tercan, B. (2001). “Post Earthquake Relocation
Process in Yalova”, MsC Thesis in Regional Planning, METU, Ankara, Turkey.
“MEER Plan Explanation Reports for Permanent
Housing Areas” (1999). Adapazarı Permanent Housing Area, UTTA Planning and Belda
Cooperation.
“Bolu Province Socio – Economic, Cultural and Spatial
Development Scheme, Environmental Master Plan 1/100 000”, UTTA Ltd, Ankara
1999.
“Duzce Environmental Master Plan 1/25 000”,
UTTA Ltd., Ankara, 1999.
Disaster Law, No: 7269-1051.
Yorumlar
Yorum Gönder