Page 51 - Çevre Şehir İklim İngilizce - Sayı 4

Seda Kundak

in terms of year and place, or a structure that tends in one direction.
Similar situation is observed in the participants’ preferences between
reinforcement and transformation options. In particular, the fact that
the proportion of undecided participants and non-respondents
is at significant rates in all survey results can be interpreted as the
information about urban transformation could not be widespread to
society or there are some ambiguities about it. The evaluations made
by descriptive statistics method present the results only according
to the general and spatial distribution. More descriptive results can
be reached through comparisons with data on risk perception, trust
parameters and household characteristics, or through clustering
according to earthquake hazard zones.
• When the expectations in the direction of gains from urban transformation
are examined, it has been seen that the difference between the
expectation of gains (same-2 times) in the study of 2013 is 6 points. In
2019, this difference increased to 16 points and decreased to 9 points
after the Silivri earthquake. This shows that the interviewed participants
regarded this legal tool and applications as fit for its purpose and its name
at the time when the law is first introduced, but in the following periods,
they also thought that it could be used for extra gains perhaps due to
the application examples where there was an increase in the construction
coefficients. At this point, we can say that urban transformation has
deviated from its axis in a perceptual sense. However, due to the anxiety
experienced after the Silivri earthquake and the reminders of the İstanbul
earthquake, it can be mentioned that urban transformation is approaching
the perception of safe construction again. In order for this assessment to
be more consistent, it is necessary to review the relationship between
ground acceleration values and survey results.
• Three basic propositions regarding risky structures are presented within
the scope of this article. The answers given to the proposition whether
the old structures are risky differ from the answers of the other two
propositions. Perhaps the most critical part in this question package is
the one related to unlicensed structures and buildings with amended
structures. Although the answers given in the form of “strongly
disagree, disagree and undecided” about the relevant propositions
are at a very low level, they are not acceptable in a country where
many devastating earthquakes have been experienced. While there
are examples where a single user in a multi-apartment building makes
structural amendments, and the building is completely destroyed in an
earthquake, it is noteworthy that the proportion of those who do not
think that such interventions are risky is at the level of 2-5%.

40 The Journal of Environment, Urban and Climate