Page 45 - Çevre Şehir İklim İngilizce - Sayı 4

Seda Kundak

exhibited similar indecisiveness. The 2019 survey provides results showing
that the proposition of living in high-rise buildings is not acceptable in a
stronger way while the proportion of undecided people decreases. After the
Silivri earthquake, the reluctance to live in high-rise buildings has increased to
over 50%.
In order for the structures to be identified as risky, it is necessary to evaluate
them by performing a series of engineering checks. However, it is important to
understand the scope of risky building concept from the point of view of the
society since it is one of the criteria that can be taken into account when buying,
renting or utilising a house. Considering the whole table, it is seen that all three
propositions have been approved in a high level by the participants (Figure
4). For the question of whether the old buildings are risky or not, opinions are
differentiated in the 2019 survey and 33% of them states that old structures are
not risky in the 4th Ring. The differentiation in 1st Ring is remarkable in the survey
conducted after Silivri earthquake compared to the previous periods. About
16% of the participants in this region stated that they do not agree with the view
that old structures are risky. When asked about the risky situation of unlicensed
structures, it is seen that the Silivri earthquake did not create a differentiation on
this proposition, although there is a higher approval compared to the previous
question. Although the opinions about the risky situation of the structures
with amended load-bearing system are parallel to the answers given to other
questions, the proportion of those who disagree with this proposition or those
who state that they are undecided is not to be ignored.
This question package, which includes the risk assessments of the participants
regarding the place of residence, was asked before the questions in the order
in the questionnaire, in which the participants made assessments regarding
risky structures in order not to manipulate their perceptions. However, the
answers have been evaluated at this stage in order to ensure the integrity of
the expression in this text. When the 2013 and 2019 surveys were compared,
the participants’ opinions about both the region and the structure they live in
evolved towards negative (Figure 5). In particular, looking at the results of the
residents of the 4th Ring regarding the region and building they answered in
2019 survey, it is seen that the proportion of those who consider the area they
live in as risky is lower than the proportion of those who consider the building
they live in as risky. While it was expected that the Silivri earthquake would
increase the concern and sensitivity related to the issue, the assessment was
quite opposite. There may be several reasons for this situation. They may have
thought that both the region they live in and their structures are not as risky as
they predicted taking the Silivri earthquake as reference. They may have felt
the earthquake less or not at all, or the structure they live in may have been
built after the 1999 earthquake.

34 The Journal of Environment, Urban and Climate