Two Papers of Urbanization in Turkey

Two Papers About Urbanization

in Turkey

Cities and Urban Population

&

Faults, Earthquakes and Cities

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sedat Avcı

Ġstanbul, 2005

Two Papers About Urbanization in Turkey


&

Faults, Earthquakes and Cities

Copyright © 2005 by Sedat Avcı

Ġstanbul University, Letters Faculty

Department of Geography

34459 Ġstanbul/TURKEY

[email protected]

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

system, or transmitted by any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except as may be expressly permitted by

the applicable copyright statutes.

ISBN 975-9060-12-4

Contents

Figures ....................................................................................................... IV Tables ......................................................................................................... VI Boxes ......................................................................................................... VI Preface ...................................................................................................... VII

Part I Cities and Urban Population (1927–2000) ............................................................................................... XI Population of Turkey (1927–2000) .............................................................. 3 Population Policies of Turkey and Urbanization ......................................... 5 Development of the Cities as to Their Population Sizes ............................ 14 Distribution of Urban Population in Turkey .............................................. 21 The Future of Urbanization in Turkey ....................................................... 32 References .................................................................................................. 34

Part II Faults, Earthquakes and Cities: A case study for Turkey .......................................................................... 37 Paleogeographic Evolution of Turkey and its Results ............................... 41 Outline of Urbanization of Turkey before the 2000’s ............................... 49 Urbanization in 2000s ................................................................................ 55 Results........................................................................................................ 65 References .................................................................................................. 71

IV

Figures

Figure 1: Geographical region of Turkey. A-Marmara Region. .................. IX

Figure 2: Development of Turkey population (1927–2000) .......................... 4

Figure 3: Annual population insrease rate (1927–2000). ............................... 6

Figure 4: Rural and urban population (1927–2000). ...................................... 7

Figure 5: Erzurum. The biggest city in Eastern Anatolia Region. An

important city cases of economy, social, and administration. .............. 10

Figure 6: Sarıgazi was a village until 1980. Between years 1980–1990

it was a town, and than after the 1990 it was a city. Now, it is in

the Ġstanbul metropolitan area. ............................................................. 15

Figure 7: Ġstanbul. A metropolitan which is the biggest in Turkey

and very important for world. .............................................................. 17

Figure 8: Kastamonu. An example of a medium-sized city in the

inner parts of Black Sea Region. .......................................................... 19

Figure 9: TaĢkent. A small-sized city in Mediterranean Region,

between mountains. Only a centre for nearby settlements. .................. 20

Figure 10: Distribution of urban population in Turkey (1927). ................... 22




V



Figure 16:Generalized Palaeotectonic map of the Permo-Triassic for

Anatolia . .............................................................................................. 42

Figure 17: Generalized Palaeotectonic map of the early Jurassic

for Anatolia . ........................................................................................ 43

Figure 18: Generalized Palaeotectonic map of the middle Jurassic for

Anatolia ............................................................................................... 44

Figure 19: Generalized Palaeotectonic map of the late Cretaceous-

Palaeocene for Anatolia . ..................................................................... 44

Figure 20: Generalized Palaeotectonic map of the late Eocene-early

Miocene for Anatolia . ......................................................................... 45

Figure 21: Generalized Palaeotectonic map of the middle Miocene-Pliocene

for Anatolia . ........................................................................................ 46

Figure 22: Anatolian plate according to plate tectonics . ............................. 47

Figure 23: Active faults, earthquake zones and huge earthquakes

in Turkey. ............................................................................................. 48

Figure 24: Urban population when earthquake zones are considered

(1927). .................................................................................................. 52


(1950). .................................................................................................. 54


(1970). .................................................................................................. 56


(1980). .................................................................................................. 61


(2000). .................................................................................................. 66

VI

Tables

Table 1: Cities and urban populations in Turkey (1927–2000) .................... 8

Table 2: Development of urban population in Turkey (1927-2000). .......... 12

Table 3: City numbers and populations of population sizes (1927-2000). 16

Table 4: Important earthquakes in Turkey (Ms≥5.5). ................................ 69

Boxes

Box 1: Gediz earthquake 1970, Aegean Region, West Turkey. ................ 57

Box 2: Burdur earthquake 1971, Mediterranean Region, West Turkey .... 58

Box 3: 1971 Bingöl and 1976 Çaldıran-Muradiye earthquakes, East

Anatolia Region, East Turkey. ............................................................ 59

Box 4: 1984 Erzurum earthquake. Eastern Anatolia Region, East

Turkey ................................................................................................. 60

Box 5: 1995 Dinar earthquakes, Aegean Region, West Turkey. ................ 62

Box 6: 1998 Adana-Ceyhan earthquakes, Mediterranean Region. ............. 63

Box 7: 1999 Kocaeli earthquake, Marmara Region, West Turkey. ............ 64

Preface

For a very long time, cities are preferred to be lived in. Only a

migration that isn’t heaped can be tolerated by cities. Urbanization

is highly related with development. It’s very normal to see that “still-

developing” countries have less developed and relatively developed

regions.

In Turkey, urbanization level wasn’t very high, till 1950s. The

investments that are done to the agriculture increased the level of

production and productivity. Especially, the growing of rural capital

brings the mechanization in agriculture and because of all this a

number of people who hasn’t got a job and who doesn’t know

anything but agriculture was created.

More labor force is needed in the cities. The population that

can’t feed themselves in rural community migrates to the urban area.

As a result, big cities became bigger and everyday new cities are

being created and the distribution of the cities is changing. A similar

article to this one was published in the Review of the Department of

Geography, University of Istanbul by the same author. To tell the

changes between years 1990-2000 Cities and Urban Population

(1927-2000) was written.

When Turkey is urbanizing very fast, both in the new cities and

old but growing ones face with some problems. The problems of

administration of the cities are not the topic of this study, though.

However, it whispers the truth of “Turkey suffering from earthquakes

a lot” and with this it’s necessary to examine the dispersion of the

cities in case of earthquakes and faults. In the study which is called

Faults, Earthquakes, and Cities: A Case Study for Turkey, the

geomorphologic evolution of Turkey was pointed out first and later

the fault systems that are effecting Turkey and location of cities were

considered some geographers also researched about earthquakes as

well as earth scientist. Some of these researches were summarized in

order to enlighten the readers.

VIII

To show the geographical regions and districts that were

mentioned in the text, Figure 1 was drawn.

And the last words…

I would like to thank my daughter Burçak Avcı; and my wife and

my colleague Dr. Meral Avcı for their help and patience. And last of

all I want to thank Çantay Kitabevi for their help in publishing this

book.

Dr. Sedat Avcı

Feneryolu, August 2005

IX

Fig

ure

1:

Geo

gra

phic

al r

egio

n o

f T

urk

ey.

A-M

arm

ara

Reg

ion

(A

1-I

stra

nca

P

art,

A2

-Erg

ene

Par

t, A

3-Ç

atal

ca-K

oca

eli

Par

t, A

4-S

ou

th M

arm

ara

Par

t),

B-A

egea

n R

egio

n (B

1-M

ain

A

egea

n P

art,

B

2-I

nn

er W

est

An

ato

lia

Par

t),

C-

Med

iter

ran

ean

Reg

ion

(C

1-A

nta

lya

Par

t, C

2-A

dan

a P

art)

, D

-Cen

tral

Anat

oli

a R

egio

n (

D1

-Ko

ny

a P

art,

D2

-Up

per

Sak

ary

a P

art,

D3

-Mid

dle

Kız

ılır

mak

Par

t, D

4-U

pp

er K

ızıl

ırm

ak P

art)

, E

-Bla

ck S

ea R

egio

n (

E1

-Wes

t B

lack

Sea

Part

, E

2-M

idd

le B

lack

Sea

Par

t, E

3-E

ast

Bla

ck S

ea P

art)

, F

-Eas

tern

An

ato

lia

Reg

ion

(F

1-E

rzu

rum

-Kar

s P

art,

F2

-Up

per

Fır

at P

art,

F3

-Up

per

Mu

rat-

Van

Par

t, F

4-H

akk

âri

Par

t),

and

G-S

ou

rtea

st A

nat

oli

a R

egio

n (

G1

-Mid

dle

Fır

at P

art,

G2

-Dic

le P

art)

.

Part I


(1927–2000)

One of the indicators in the development of a country is its level

of urbanization. In this study, two dimensions of urbanization in

Turkey, numerical increase of the cities and their population growth,

will be dealt with in the years from 1927 to 2000. In this paper, first

of all the change in the population and time was considered. After

that, it was considered with the criteria that whether they were cities

or not. And at last, their decreasing number and their population was

considered.

In this study, use to population data of “State Institute of

Statistics, Prime Ministry Republic of Turkey” from 1927 to 2000.

First population census in the Republic of Turkey was made in 1927.

Population census was applied every five years in between from

1935 to 1990, and since 1990 it will be applied every ten years.

Some criteria are used in order to determine whether or not the

settlements can be considered as cities. Among them, one may cite

such characteristics as population size, population density, functions,

ways of living, and being and administrative, economical and

cultural center (AVCI, 2004: 10). In this study, population number is

used as a criterion in the determination of cities. Settlements of

10.000 or more population have been considered as cities. The cities

which are determined by the criterion of population size have been

grouped in populations of 10.001-50.000, 50.001-100.000, 100.001-

1.000.000, and more than 1.000.000.

Population of Turkey (1927–2000)

The population of Turkey was 67.8 millions in 2000, but

seventy-three years ago (in 1927) it was only 13.6 millions (Figure

2). Turkey’s population was very slowly increasing from the years of

World War II to 1950s. But between years 1950-1960, population of

Turkey increased intensely. So, it reached 27.7 millions in 1960. In

1970, the population was 35 million people, and in 1985 it was 50

million people. But, when the annual population increase rate of

4

Fig

ure

2:

Dev

elopm

ent

of

Turk

ey p

opula

tion (

19

27

–2000)

5

Turkey analyzed, we saw that it didn’t increase (Figure 3). Between

years 1927-1945, this rate decreased from early in this period

21.10‰ to late in this period 10.59‰. Between years 1945-1960,

population had been increased very fast and in 1960 the annual

population increase rate was 28.53‰. Between years 1980-1985,

population of Turkey was increased (24.90‰), but annual population

increase rate decreased. This rate was 18.29‰ between years 1990-

2000.

The annual population increase rate was the same in the urban

and rural places. In general, the population increase rate in the rural

places was greater than the population increase rate of urban. But

because of the migration, this situation can’t be seen in the results.

Instead of this, the results show that urban community’s population is

increasing more rapidly. When the complicated work on the rate of

death and birth is considered, it can be seen that the population

increase rate is higher in the rural communities instead of urban.

According to the result of 1998 Population Research the crude birth

rate in 1995 was 22.6‰, in 2000 was 21.8‰; and the crude death

rate in 1995 was 6.9‰, in 2000 was 6.7‰. Annual population

growth rate was 15.7‰ in 1995, and 15.0‰ in 2000 (SPO, 2001:

86). In the beginning of the Planning time, the rates were higher than

today.

Population Policies of Turkey and Urbanization

In the first modern population census in Turkey, carried out in 1927

as the General Population Census, Turkey’s population has been

established as 13.6 million. In this census, urban population

(2.236.085) consisted of 16.38% of the total population. In the

General Population Census of 2000, the Turkish population reached

67.8 million, and the rate of urban population, which, for the first

time in 1985 was more than the rural population, reached 64.8% in

2000 (Figure 4). In 2000, 43.932.401 people lived in cities (Table 1).

After the First World War, Turkey, which found herself in the War

of Independence, lost a considerable part of her population in the

wars. For the purpose of preventing the numerical decrease in the

population, a “Policy of Increasing the Population” was adopted in

years when the Republic was founded, and the population

6

Fig

ure

3:

Annual

popula

tion i

nsr

ease

rat

e (1

927

–2000).

7

Fig

ure

4:

Rura

l an

d u

rban

popula

tion (

1927–20

00).

8

Table 1: Cities and urban populations in Turkey (1927–2000)

increased due to the measures being taken either by the reduction of

deaths relates to diseases and poor nutrition or by the encouragement

of the births. Although this rapid rate of increase in the population

was diminished during the Second World War, it gained its

momentum later.

The population policy of Turkey was again handled in the

“Planning Period”1. When it was seen that, with the rapid increase in

population, national revenue per head which was one of the

indicators of the economic development was not increased (DPT,

1963: 67), a situation in the second half of the 1960s which was

1 Various plans have been prepared aimed at the development of the country after

the announcement of the Republic. These include “The First Industrial Plan of the

1933 of the Turkish Republic”, The Second Industrial Plan of 1936 of the

Republic”, “Urgent Industry Plan of 1946”, and “The Turkish Development Plan

of 1947”. The first three plans have dealt with the industry on a sectoral basis. In

the fourth plan, the sectors of economy and infrastructure are included, but not

social sectors, educations, health, and housing projects, etc. State Planning

Organization has been established by the Constitution of 1960. This institution is

responsible for preparing five-year development plans. In these development plans

target and strategies are determined and economic and social planning are dealt

with together. The researches working on the economical history of Turkey have

distinguished the years after the First Plan in 1963, as the “Planned Period” (AVCI,

2000: 36-56).

9

defined as “population planning”, meaning that families could have

as many children as they wanted, was adopted, instead of a period

when even the information about the birth control was banned by

laws. Particularly, in “The Second Development Planning”, the

phenomenon of urbanization which led to the alteration of social

structure besides industrialization was defined as a positive

movement (DPT, 1967: 55). As suggested also in this plan, two

problems, that is, housing and employment reveal themselves as a

result. These problems in the cities can only be solved by planning.

The major reason of the migration from the rural to urban scene is

that the living conditions in the big cities are better than those in the

rural areas.

Until 1950s, the urbanization phenomenon in Turkey was not on

a larger scale. The acceleration of urbanization began after these

years and continued up to the present time. However, this

urbanization was not functional, and as mentioned in “Third Five-

Year Development Plan” was not related to industrialization, but it

was a phenomenon manifesting itself in the crowding of the

population in the cities (DPT, 1973: 112). As a result of this, new

areas having no infrastructure, or having negative conditions as to the

proper use of the land, and being the scene for speculative actions,

have been formed around the cities.

In the Fourth of the Development Plans, it has been presumed

that the population of rural and urban areas will be equal in 1980

(DPT, 1979: 253). This target has found place in “The Fifth Five-

Year Development Plan” and the rate of urbanization has been

determined to be around 52% (DPT, 1985: 164). The urban

population being more than half the total population, which was

expected to be realized after 1980, had occurred in 1985. While the

difference in the increase of population rates between periods has

varied from 1-5% this increase has been realized as over 10% in the

1980-1985 period. One of the important reasons of this was that

cities with larger areas were formed by uniting the cities with

settlements near them, after 1980, by some administrative changes.

Examples of this kind of unification include Ilıca being united with

Erzurum, Argıncık with Kayseri, and Horozköy with Manisa (Figure

5).

10

F

igu

re 5

: E

rzu

rum

. T

he

big

ges

t ci

ty i

n E

aste

rn A

nat

oli

a R

egio

n. A

n i

mport

ant

city

cas

es o

f ec

onom

y,

soci

al, an

d a

dm

inis

trat

ion.

11

For the purpose of revealing the dimensions of urbanization in

Turkey and making the phenomenon more manifest, an arrangement

has been made in the values regarding the development of urban

population (Table 2). According to this as the increase has been

calculated between periods, the population of the settlements which

became new cities are subtracted and the real increase of the urban

population between periods has been tried to be reached. The

population found in the last census without including the settlements

of over 10.000 populations has been called the regulated urban

population, and the rate of increase between these values has been

called the regulated increase of the urban population. The major

characteristic which becomes manifest in the table in question is that,

in cities both the births are more than the deaths (natural population

growth), and the increase related to the continuous immigration from

the outside gains momentum as we approach to the present day.

As mentioned before, since urbanization was not of significant

dimensions until 1950s, the increases were not substantial during

census years. If we start from the regulated urban population of

Turkey, it becomes clear that the population increase between

periods has been 300.000-400.000 approximately in this period.

However, the increases between periods after 1950, exceeded 1

million and in 1965, 2 million. In the period 1980-1985, the amount

of the increase has approached 7 millions. If those which are

admitted the new city category are included in these figures, it will

be observed that the population increase between period beginnings

with 500 thousand people will reach 7.5 million in 1985. This shows

how fast the urban population increases in Turkey. However, this

condition did not continue in 1985-1990 period. Between years

1985-1990, the urban population exceeded 30 million with an

increase of over 5 million, and the number of cities reached 450.

Between years 1990-2000, urban population increased to 43.9

million, and the numbers of cities become 580. The urban population

increase was over 12 million.

The study of either the population of Turkey or the annual

population growth of cities will be of the explanation of urbanization

12

Ta

ble

2:

Dev

elopm

ent

of

urb

an p

opula

tion i

n T

urk

ey (

1927

-2000).

13

movements in Turkey2. From 1927 to 2000, the annual rate of

population growth is 21.96 per thousand in Turkey’s general

population. However, in the same period, the urban population

growth was 40.79 per thousand.

The slow development observed in the annual growth rate of

urban population in the period of 1927-1945 was replaced by a rapid

growth since 1948. In this years following the Second World War,

the attempts of small farms to enlarge their lands in parallel with the

price increase in agricultural produce and in general increase the

number of children who farm the labor force as well as the decrease

in the number of infant deaths observed in the countryside, were the

basis of rapid population growth (VERGĠN, 1986: 28). In

consequence, this has caused the beginning of a movement from the

countryside to the cities, because of slow realization of development

anticipated in the rural parts and failure of balancing the population

growth. However, a partial decrease in the population growth was

observed, starting from 1965. Among its causes, one can include the

rural areas being less desirable, depending on the policies

implemented by various governments concerning the support of

basic prices of agricultural produce on the one hand, and city life

being more difficult because of increasing inflation rates on the

other. When the cases of violence seen in big cites of the relatively

decrease in the urban growth can be explained more precisely

(KELEġ, 1982: 217). On the other hand, after 1980, the secure

atmosphere which was recreated and the desire to earn more instead

of contending with the revenue coming from the land as well as the

2 The formula

rnePP .0used by State Institute of Statistics Prime Ministry

Republic of Turkey has been taken essential in the calculations in population

growth. The calculation of annual population growth,

)log.(

)log(log

en

PoPr

which was obtained from this formula was used and to find the probable future

population, the mathematical derivate of this formula

log.loglog 0 rnPP

was used, where P= second census (or assumed population), P0=first census, r= the

rate of population growth between periods, n= duration, and e= 2.7182818

(constant number).

14

relatively positive socio-economic environment provided by the

cities have accelerated the migration to them. The movement, in

question, to the cities has caused the population growth in the city-

centers as well as in the settlements in the immediate vicinity of the

cities. Istanbul has a changed into settlements, housing more than

10.000 populations as a result of migrations. Sultanbeyli (population

in 1960 was 433, population in 2000 was 175.700) and Esenyurt

(population in 1955 was 531, population in 2000 was 148.981) are

the most striking examples on this subject. Likewise, Arnavutköy,

Samandıra and Sarıgazi (Figure 6), the population of which varied

between 1000-5000 in 1975, had a population exceeded 30.000

(Arnavutköy 37.556, Sarıgazi 48.466, Samandıra 61.852).

Development of the Cities as to Their Population Sizes

Another criterion by which the dimensions of urbanization can

be revealed is the population sizes of the cities. For this reason, the

cities are classified below according to their population sizes. In this

classified the cities with a population of 10.001-50.000 are named

small cities, those with a population of 50.001-100.000, medium

large cities, and those with a population of 100.001-1.000.000, large

cities. The settlements with a population of above one million

distinguished as metropolitan areas (Table 3).

There was no settlement with a population of over one million in

Turkey until the end 1950. Until 1970, only Ġstanbul was in this

group (Figure 7). With the development both of industrialization and

of other activities Ankara and Ġzmir had been included in this group

in 1970. The area where the most important industrial plants are

located is included today within the boundary of “Greater Ġstanbul”.

Since these industrial plants employ a considerable amount of labor

force new settlements appear around them, accommodating dense

population. Ġstanbul has at the same time a functional effect in

Turkey as a whole. In a study carried out by State Planning

Organization, it is determined that the area affected by Ġstanbul is

657.277 km2 (DPT, 1982: 5). If it is known that the surface area of

Turkey is 814.578 km2, it becomes clear that the area affected by

Ġstanbul is rather a large part of the whole. However, even though

Ankara and Ġzmir have a population of above 1 million, they do not

have such a large area of affect (In the study in question the area

15

F

igu

re 6

: S

arıg

azi

was

a v

illa

ge

unti

l 1980. B

etw

een y

ears

1980

–1990 i

t w

as a

tow

n, an

d t

han

aft

er t

he

1990 i

t w

as a

cit

y. N

ow

, it

is

in t

he

Ġsta

nbul

met

ropoli

tan a

rea.

16

Tab

le 3:

Cit

y n

um

ber

s an

d p

opula

tions

of

popula

tion s

izes

(1927-2

000).

17

F

igu

re 7

: Ġs

tanbul.

A m

etro

poli

tan w

hic

h i

s th

e big

ges

t in

Turk

ey a

nd v

ery

im

port

ant

for

worl

d.

18

affected by Ġzmir has been indicated as 116.359 km2, and that of

Ankara, as 81.387 km2). Today the influence of Ankara on Turkey is

its administrative function rather than a commercial and industrial

one. The settlement’s populations of Bursa and Adana in 2000 were

more than one million.

Large cities with a population varying between 100.001-

1.000.000, had accommodated almost 35-40% of Turkey’s total

population when Ġstanbul’s population did not exceed one million.

Later this proportion receded to about 30%. These cities today have a

strong importance in alleviating the burden of metropolitan areas.

However, in a near future, some cities included in this group will

gain inevitably the status of metropolis. The number of the cities that

has a population between 500.001-1.000.000 was 6; the number of

the cities that has a population between years 250.001-500.000 was

12; the number of the cities that has a population between years

100.001-250.000 was 35 in 2000. In this cities live about 13 million

populations.

The group of cities of moderate size which were fed by the

population growth of small cities, although they sent continuously

some cities to the group of large cities from 1927 to 2000, preserved

their position as to their numbers (Figure 8). During the period of

Turkish Republic, the share of these cities in the total population was

approximately 10%. The number of middle-sized cities increased

from 3 to 75 between years 1927-2000.

Although many new cities have been formed, those which have

more prospects of development and those which have been

positioned near the large cities, have been included in the cities with

a moderate population because of rapid increase in their population.

The small cities near the big ones form generally the stopping places

of people who participate in the step-wise immigration. In 1927, the

small cities have the population of half of the urban population

(Figure 9). Number of this cities increased from 61 to 447, its

proportion of population decreased from 52.9% to 21,0%. In 2000,

most of the population in small cities was living in the cities that

have a population between years 10.000-25.000.

19

Fig

ure

8:

Kas

tam

onu.

An e

xam

ple

of

a m

ediu

m-s

ized

cit

y i

n t

he

inner

par

ts o

f B

lack

Sea

Reg

ion.

20

F

igu

re 9

: T

aĢk

ent.

A s

mal

l-si

zed c

ity i

n M

edit

erra

nea

n R

egio

n,

bet

wee

n m

ounta

ins.

Only

a c

entr

e fo

r nea

rby

sett

lem

ents

.

21

Distribution of Urban Population in Turkey

It is not sufficient to determine the numbers of cities as to the

years and the amount of population they accommodate in dealing

with the development of urbanization. It is necessary at the same

time to study the distribution of the cities in the space. For this

reason, maps associated with the distribution of urban population in

Turkey have been drawn and the changes occurring in the

distribution and its causes have been tried to be explained in the

period from 1927 to 2000.

The number of urban centers which had been 66 in 1927 (Figure

10), became only 104 in 1950 (Figure 11). In the period after 1950,

big cities are “the land of golden opportunities” for the country

people. In the first years of migration wave, despite all the negative

factors, the possibilities of finding jobs easily and living comfortably

have been primary causes for the villagers to move to the cities,

living their land which had a small return and which was the property

of other people. This situation continued until 1970s. Certain centers

like Ġstanbul, Ankara and Ġzmir have continuously created prospects

of work in the sectors of commerce, industry and catering.

Apart from the large cities such as Ġstanbul, Ankara and Ġzmir,

other places which attract the people and which form the centers with

dense population are as follows: along valleys with east and west

direction such as Büyük Menderes and Küçük Menderes’ valley in

the Main Aegean Section; Adana and its environment which industry

based on agriculture, caused them to develop; and Zonguldak and its

environment which were developed as a result of mining activities

and industry based on them. The cities in the Main Aegean Section

had the appearance of centers dependent on transport since, in the

first years of the Turkish Republic, railway transport was most

important by which the produce of the rural areas were distributed.

Adana and its surroundings gained its current status after the

development of irrigational agriculture in Çukurova. Later, industrial

plants based on agriculture have been founded. These plants are

found particularly in Adana, Tarsus and Mersin. The urbanization

which begins with Adana has been effective in the environment, and

many new cities are developed. Immigration to this area from outside

was also rooted in this rapid urbanization (KARA, 1975: 165).

22

F

igu

re 1

0:

Dis

trib

uti

on o

f urb

an p

opula

tion i

n T

urk

ey (

1927).

23

F

igu

re 1

1:

Dis

trib

uti

on o

f urb

an p

opula

tion i

n T

urk

ey (

1950).

24

Zonguldak and its surroundings are indebted to the coal mines there

for their development. At the beginning of the last century,

Zonguldak was only a landing place of a village belonging

administratively to Ereğli. The discovery of coal mines in 1829, had

been effective in the population growth of this place (EMĠROĞLU,

1966: 202). In the period of Turkish Republic, Zonguldak and its

surroundings took its place among the areas which attracted

population because of both mining activities and the foundation of

new industrial plants. However, at the present time, Zonguldak has

engaged in maintaining its development outside the mining activities

because of economic reasons. For the purpose, new industrial

branches and functions except coal mining and iron-steel industrial

plants based on this have been tried to develop in the Zonguldak

metropolitan area, especially in the lower part of the Filyos river

valley.

It was observed that, in the period of 1950-1970, the number of

cities which was 104 in 1950, reached 123 in 1955, and 236 in 1970

(Figure 12). These cities were formed again by the old centers of

density and the cities between them. It was observed immediately

that, on the maps, the centers of density and the cities located

between them were relatively far from each other. However, the

chain of city settlements between Ġstanbul and Ġzmit which is quite

marked today started its development in 1955. As it was in the past,

during these years, the western part of the country had more cities as

compared to its eastern part. The development of cities in Western

Black Sea Section and Adana and its environment occurred between

the years 1955 and 1965, and that of the eastern part of the Black Sea

Region, in years 1965 to 1970.

Urbanization movements in Turkey have gained a different

dimension after 1970s. The first part of the period until 1980, has

been recognized as the acceleration of the migration to the big cities,

and the second part, as a period where the number of medium-size

and small cities increased rapidly. At the same time, an order

replaced the relative disorder in the distribution. Zonguldak and

Adana metropolitan areas were added to those of Ġstanbul, Ankara,

and Ġzmir.

25

F

igu

re 1

2:

Dis

trib

uti

on o

f urb

an p

opula

tion i

n T

urk

ey (

1970).

26

In 1980 General Population Census, there were 322 settlements

with a population over 10.000 in Turkey (Figure 13). In these

settlements 18.2 million people lived, which was 40.89% of total

population of the country. The changing hands in the political power

after 1980, together with the urbanization policy of the military

power which replaced the civil government, was the reason why the

population in the big cities increased rapidly, as the military allowed

the formation of new settlements especially around Ġstanbul (KELEġ,

1991: 11-15).

Political powers of later years continued this policy, adopting

some changes bur politicians preferred not doing anything on this

subject, rather than interfering with this situation, and they caused

the condition going from bad to worse. As a result of this, while

number of cities amount to 379, the population proportion of the

urban population exceeded 50% for the first time. Although more

than 60 settlements with a population growth below 10.000 are

included in the urban category, the real p growth has occurred around

the big cities and some of these areas are included into the cities

concerning their administrative status. Another point which emerged

in the 1985 General Population Census was some settlements defined

administratively as villages had population above 10.000. As an

example of this situation, one can suggest Gürsu and Kestel

settlements of Bursa. However, necessary interventions on this

subject have been carried out and the above mentioned settlements

have been changed into centers of counties in 1990. In the General

Population Census of 1990, the number of urban settlements has

reached 450 (DĠE, 1993). 56.31% of the total populations live in

cities (Figure 14). However, rapid growth in the settlement around

the big cities which is observed in 1985 has also continued in this

period. The most prominent of these are such settlement as Esenyurt,

Samandıra, and Sarıgazi around Ġstanbul. As it is realized from the

maps drawn according to the result of 1990 population census, a

second urban according to the results of 1990 population census, a

second urban settlement develops around the cities with a population

over 100.000. The same situation is observed around the cities with a

population of ore than 250.000, but the number of cities has been

more one. These settlements are generally from the suburbs of the

cities.

27

F

igu

re 1

3:

Dis

trib

uti

on o

f urb

an p

opula

tion i

n T

urk

ey (

1980).

28

F

igu

re 1

4:

Dis

trib

uti

on o

f urb

an p

opula

tion i

n T

urk

ey (

1990).

29

The last General Population Census of 20th

century was in 2000.

There were 580 urban settlements (Figure 15). In these urban

population was 64.79% of the total populations. In the 447 of the 580

settlements the population was between years 10.000-50.000; 75 of

the 580 settlements it was between years 50.001-100.000; 53 of the

580 settlement it was between 100.001-1.000.000; and in 5

settlements it was greater than 1 million. The cities that has a

population that is greater than 1 million, was urban population’s

37.7% and was about ¼ of the total population. Although the small

cities (number of small cities were 447) are more than the others

(number of the other cities were 133), the 21% (13.65 of the total

population) of the total urban population lived in them. The medium-

sized cities that have the 11.9% of the urban population have 7.7% of

the total population of Turkey. About 13 million of the population

lives in the large cities. This is the 29.4% part of the urban

population and 1/5 of the total population.

According to the results of the 2000 General Population Census, the

arrangements like beads on a string observed along the Black Sea

coasts extended from Hopa to Sinop. Moreover, in recent years new

cities are added to these and the old ones have preserved their

existence by growing as to the population count. In Çoruh-Kelkit

groove which is located in the southern part of this line, it has been

observed that urbanization is rather less and occasionally absent. In

the coasts and coastal parts of Western Black Sea Section urban

settlement beginning with Bartın continues with Zonguldak

metropolitan area. In the internal places Düzce, Bolu and

Kastamonu are the places that have great population.

Marmara Region where cities are located densely is at the same

time a region in which large cities are found close to each other.

Ġstanbul metropolitan areas and coastal part formed by Gebze, Ġzmit,

Gölcük, Karamürsel, and Yalova may be recognized as the

continuation af this area, located by cities in the form of the rings of

a chain. Adapazarı, Bursa, Balıkesir, Çorlu, Tekirdağ, and Ġnegöl are

the other large cities of Marmara Region.

The cities found in the direction of eastern and western valleys

of Aegean Region, just like those in the coastal parts of the Black

Sea Region, are increased both in numbers and in population. Ġzmir

30

F

igu

re 1

5:

Dis

trib

uti

on o

f urb

an p

opula

tion i

n T

urk

ey (

2000).

31

which possesses a large hinterland is again the largest city of Aegean

Region. An increase may be mentioned in the numbers of cities,

found in the Inner Western Anatolian Section. However, those cities

attract attention rather by having less population. Denizli, Manisa,

Kütahya, Aydın, UĢak, Afyonkarahisar, and Nazilli are large cities.

In the Antalya Section of the Mediterranean Region, Antalya,

and Isparta form important urban settlements. Particularly Antalya

among them is being the scene of large population movements in the

“tourism season”, but it resumes its uncrowded condition when

tourists leave the city at the end of the season. In the western part of

the Mediterranean Region, as in other district, small or medium size

cities are located between large ones. The part where population is

really dense has been Adana Section. The cities which begin by

Mersin, and Tarsus, end by Antakya in the south. This part where

urbanization has been observed to a large extent may be limited by

the triangle formed by Adana, KahramanmaraĢ, and Gaziantep. As

mentioned before, Adana and its environment which develop first

agriculture of cotton and them by the foundation of industrial plants

based on cotton processing, is continuing its development by

industrial branches not dependent on agriculture. From Mersin to

TaĢucu, the shore line has high population usually in summer. In this

district the development comes with tourism.

In the Inner Anatolia Region, apart from such centers of

provinces as Ankara, Konya, Kayseri, EskiĢehir, Sivas, Kırıkkale,

Aksaray, and Karaman are also included among large cities. Of these

cities, Kayseri, EskiĢehir, and Kırıkkale have entered into a

development period which may share the rigors of excess population

created in Ankara. There are rather less population cities (KırĢehir,

Ereğli, Polatlı, Niğde, Yozgat, NevĢehir, Çankırı, and Sorgun)

besides the above mentioned cities. Polatlı is the western extensions

of the Ankara metropolitan areas.

The cities are less dense both as their numbers and as their urban

population isn Eastern Anatolia Region. Malatya, Erzurum, Van, and

Elazığ are settlements with a population over 250.000 in the region.

The population of Erzincan is greater than 100.000. The population

of other places recognized as cities are less and these settlements are

scattered among the large cities. South-Eastern Anatolia Region has

32

higher values as to the cities and urban population as compared to the

Eastern Anatolia Region. The important cities here include

Gaziantep, Diyarbakır, ġanlıurfa, Batman, Adıyaman, Siverek,

ViranĢehir, and Kızıltepe. Among these cities are located again the

ones with lesser populations. It is a fact that in Turkey the cities in

the plains and valleys in the form of grooves develop rapidly.

Although it has a high altitude, the cities in Eastern Anatolia Region

are again founded in plains. Mountainous areas and small

depressions rather attract attention by the presence of small units of

settlements.

The Future of Urbanization in Turkey

One can speculate about the future of urbanization, starting from

the role of population growth and general tendency to development.

In the 6th

Development Plan which included the period of 1990-1994,

it has been estimated that the rate of urbanization will exhibit a

relative decrease, but, that the urban population will increase as

compared to the total population. State Planning Organization, in its

studies on the future of urbanization, aimed at the development of

cities of moderate size (50.000-500.000 population) in the

distribution of nationwide settlements degrees and at providing

specialty among cities, the determination of present potential, and

development of certain function. Moreover, as it is expected that

metropolitan areas will be rapidly populated and new ones will

appear, it is suggested in the planning that the problems of these

location will be compensated by particularly proper planning (DPT,

1989: 314-315).

One can speculate the future population of Turkey, and its urban

population, and on what would the population of these be in the

future. The annual rate of population growth between years 1927-

2000 had been considered essential in finding the annual rate of

population. According to this, between years 1927-2000, population

of Turkey had increased 21.96 per thousand, and the urban

population had increased 40.79 per thousand. It is possible that the

population which was 67.8 million in 2000 will be 81.0 million in

2010. For urban population, it is predicted that the population of 43.9

million will be 58.0 million in 2010. According to this, the share of

urban population in the total population will be 72.0% in 2010.

33

The probable surface area distribution of urban population can

be summarized briefly as follows: Ġstanbul and its surroundings will

again be the largest metropolitan area. The possible developments, at

a first glance, are that Adana, Bursa, and Ġskenderun metropolis will

be added to Ankara, Ġzmir, and Zonguldak metropolitan areas. It is

proper to mention that the borders of present metropolitan areas will

be larger still.

The energy plants and factories being founded in Trakya, will

lead to still rapid development of industrial activities there. However,

it may be expected that the farmers will continue their agricultural

activities which form an important source of capital for the Region’s

economy. This situation will make the development of cities possible

in places where industrialization is rapid, and in other places, it will

help the countryside to protect itself economically.

Important increases in the eastern half of Anatolia regarding the

urbanization cannot be expected unless new job prospects are

created. However, the development of this Region may be made

possible as a result of governments, being the precursors of the

foundations of industrial establishments and supporting the private

sector by the provision of incentives. Thus, even though the

population of the western part of the country would not be regressed,

the migration from the east to the west would, at least, be decreased.

An area which will probably be rapidly populated but agriculture

rather than industry will be dominant application areas of South-

Eastern Anatolia Project. But, in the last years, usually agricultural

sectors had done a mistake (wrong irrigation, mistake fertilize etc),

because of these mistakes the production is less than the previous

years. South-East Anatolia Region’s rural areas became abandoned,

because rural population has migrated to urban areas. So that

medium-sized or large cities became bigger.

The factories where such agricultural products as tea plants and

hazelnuts and those where forest products are processed, and

shipbuilding yards, constitute the bases of industry in the Black Sea

Region. Moreover, after the breakdown of the Soviet Socialist

Republic, some development in the border and transit trades may be

expected with the Turk Republics in Middle Asia based on the

relations being renewed with them. However, many arrangements

34

should be made in order to realize a continuous trade activity.

Otherwise, at it happened in the last few years, the population in the

Black Sea Region, Eastern Anatolia Region, and Southeastern

Anatolia Region will continue to decrease and the migration

phenomenon which appears as the abandonment of the countryside

will affect the cities in the future. Consequently, it is clear that, in the

future, as in the past, the urbanization movement in Turkey will have

two dimensions. The cities will continue to increase both in number

and in population because of natural population growth and

migrations.

References

AVCI, S. (2000). “Türkiye’nin ekonomi politikaları ve coğrafi

sonuçları (Economical politics in Turkey and their geographical

result)”, İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Coğrafya

Bölümü Coğrafya Dergisi 8: 29–70.

AVCI, S. (2003). “GeliĢimi ve Sorunları Açısından Türkiye’de

ġehirleĢme” In Sırrı Erinç Sempozyumu 2003 Bildiri Özetleri

Kitabı: 218–224. Ġstanbul.

AVCI, S. (2004). “ġehir yerleĢmelerinin belirlenmesinde kullanılan

kriterler ve Türkiye örneği (The criterion of defining urban

settlement and Turkey as an example)”, İstanbul Üniversitesi

Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 8: 9–28.

Devlet Ġstatistik Enstitüsü (DĠE) (1928). Population de la Turquie,

D’aprés le recensement du 28 Octobre 1927, Ankara: T.C.

BaĢbakanlık Devlet Ġstatistik Enstitüsü.

Devlet Ġstatistik Enstitüsü (DĠE) (1952) 1950 Genel Nüfus Sayımı,

İdari Bölünüş, Ankara: T.C. BaĢbakanlık Devlet Ġstatistik

Enstitüsü.


İdari Bölünüş, Ankara: T.C. BaĢbakanlık Devlet Ġstatistik

Enstitüsü.


Nüfusun Sosyal ve Ekonomik Nitelikleri, Ankara: T.C.


35

Devlet Ġstatistik Enstitüsü (DĠE) (1993). 1990 Genel Nüfus Sayımı,



Devlet Ġstatistik Enstitüsü (DĠE) (2004). 2000 Genel Nüfus Sayımı,



Devlet Ġstatistik Enstitüsü (DĠE) (1995). Türkiye Nüfusu, 1923–1994

(Demografi Yapısı ve Gelişimi, Ankara: T.C. BaĢbakanlık Devlet

Ġstatistik Enstitüsü.

Devlet Planlama TeĢkilatı (DPT) (1963). Kalkınma Planı Birinci Beş

Yıl 1963–1967, Ankara: TC. BaĢbakanlık Devlet Planlama

TeĢkilatı.

Devlet Planlama TeĢkilatı (DPT) (1967). Kalkınma Planı İkinci Beş

Yıl 1968–1972, Ankara: TC. BaĢbakanlık Devlet Planlama

TeĢkilatı.

Devlet Planlama TeĢkilatı (DPT) (1973). Yeni Strateji ve Kalkınma

Planı Üçüncü Beş Yıl 1973–1977, Ankara: TC. BaĢbakanlık

Devlet Planlama TeĢkilatı.

Devlet Planlama TeĢkilatı (DPT) (1979). Dördüncü Beş Yıllık

Kalkınma Planı 1979–1983, Ankara: TC. BaĢbakanlık Devlet

Planlama TeĢkilatı.

Devlet Planlama TeĢkilatı (DPT) (1982). Türkiye’de Yerleşme

Merkezlerinin Kademelenmesi (Ülke Yerleşme Merkezleri

Sistemi) II, Ankara: TC. BaĢbakanlık Devlet Planlama TeĢkilatı.

Devlet Planlama TeĢkilatı (DPT) (1985). Beşinci Beş Yıllık Kalkınma

Planı 1985–1989, Ankara: TC. BaĢbakanlık Devlet Planlama

TeĢkilatı.

Devlet Planlama TeĢkilatı (DPT) (1989). Altıncı Beş Yıllık Kalınma

Planı 1990–1994, Ankara: TC. BaĢbakanlık Devlet Planlama

TeĢkilatı.

EMĠROĞLU, M. (1966). “Zonguldak’ta endüstri ve iĢgücü

münasebetleri”, Coğrafya Araştırmaları Dergisi 1: 201–223.

GEDĠK, A. (2003). “Differential urbanization in Turkey: 1955-

2000”. 43rd

Congress of the European Regional Science

Association (http://www.ersa.org/ersaconfs/ersa03/cdrom/

papers/335.pdf. Last accessed 10.08.2005).

36

KARA, H. (1975). “Çukurova’da pamuk (Çukurova’da geliĢen

pamuk tarımının köy hayatı, tarım ekonomisi ve endüstrisi

üzerine etkileri)”, Coğrafya Araştırmaları Dergisi 7: 159–193.

KELEġ, R. (1982). “KentleĢme, nüfus ve çevre”. In Nüfus ve Çevre

Konferansı, Ankara: Türkiye Çevre Sorunları Vakfı, 212–245.

KELEġ, R. (1991). “Planlı dönemin plansız kentleĢmesi -30 yılın

(1961-1991) bilançosu”. In Türkiye’de Şehirciliğin Gelişiminde

Son 30 Yılın Değerlendirilmesi, Türkiye’de 15. Dünya Şehircilik

Günü, 3. Türkiye Şehircilik Kongresi Tebliğleri, Ġzmir: 9–16.

ÖKMEN, M. (2001). “Sivas’ta kentsel geliĢme”. Cumhuriyet

Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi 2 (1): 239–264.

ÖZÇAĞLAR, A. (1997). “1995 yılında Türkiye’deki belediye

örgütlü yerleĢmelerin coğrafî dağılıĢı”. Ankara Üniversitesi

Türkiye Coğrafyası Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi 6:

243–272.

ÖZÇAĞLAR, A. (1996). “Türkiye’nin idari coğrafyası bakımından

köy, bucak, ilçe, il ve belde kavramları üzerine düĢünceler”.

Coğrafya Araştırmaları Dergisi: 7–24.

ÖZGÜR, M. (1998). Türkiye Nüfus Coğrafyası. Ankara: GMC

Basın-Yayın Ltd. ġti.

State Planning Organization (SPO) (2001). 8th

Five-Year

Development Plan 2001-2005, Ankara: Republic of Turkey

Prime Ministry State Planning Organization.

UNSAL, F. (2004). “Viewpoint Globalization and the mid-rank city:

The case of Adana, Turkey”. Cities 21 (5): 439-449.

VERGĠN, N. (1986). “Hızlı ĢehirleĢmenin sosyolojik ve siyasal

sonuçları”, in Hızlı Şehirleşmenin Yarattığı Ekonomik ve Sosyal

Sorunlar Semineri, Ġstanbul: Siyasi ve Sosyal AraĢtırmalar

Vakfı, 27–52.

Part II

Faults, Earthquakes and Cities:

A case study for Turkey

Our knowledge of human history and rapid increase in

population show us that a big portion of the population will live in

the cities and their peripheries in the future. Being the center of

economic activities and various civilizations, cities held a small

portion of the world’s population until the last century, in spite of

their thousands of years of history. In the 21st century, it is estimated

that city systems will dominate the world’s social, economic, cultural

and political order (UN-HABITAT, 2001: 10).

Social human needs are as important as physical factors in

determining the settling spots of the settlements and the development

of these settlements. However, in settlements outside the city, people

often use materials existing in nature in creating their habitat. Cities,

by their planning, by the materials used, by their construction

technology, by their administration, carry the stamp of man and are

defined as “man made”. Most of the time, man creates changes in the

natural environment, such as filling and fitting, etc., so as to develop

cities (DOW, 2000: 255-256).

Some of these cities have local, some global importance. Highly

populated cities may not always be of global importance. These

settlements have wealth in terms of socio-economics, human capital,

culture, and environment and are capable of maintaining

sustainability by their technological and economic features (KAM

NG & HILLS, 2003). Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taipei,

Shanghai in Asia, London and Paris in Europe, New York, Chicago

and Los Angeles in America, Mexico City in Latin America may be

cited as examples of settlements that have high global importance.

Generally, it is accepted that there is a correlation between the

increase in urbanization ratio and the development level of the

countries. On the global scale, urban population ratio was 36.6% in

1970 and 44.8% in 1994. However, in developed areas like Europe,

North America, Japan and Australia, it was reported that in 1994,

40

84% of the population lived in cities. It is estimated in the

calculations done for the year 2025 that 61.1% of the world’s

population will live in the cities (OUCHO, 2001). In 1995, the

world’s population was 5.7 billion and the number of people living in

cities was around 3.5 billion. In the year 2050, the world’s

population is expected to be 8.9 billion and the population living in

cities is expected to reach 6 billion.

Most of the time, cities acting as the center for other settlements

placed around them differ from these settlements in a lot of their

features. However, to be able to name a settlement a city, specific

criteria are needed. In the studies by UN, it is mentioned that for a

settlement to be named a city, the population should at least be 2000.

But this issue varies from country to country. There are some

countries in which due to the differences between development and

natural conditions, 5000, 10.000 or 20.000 may be accepted as the

bottom line for the cities, a settlement can also be called a city for the

reasons of different functions like population ratio per square

kilometer, predominant non-agricultural activities, and being the

administrative center (EVERSON & FIZTGERALD 1977: 2-3;

OUCHO 2001). In this study, taking characteristics of Turkey into

account, it is assumed that in settlements with a population of

10.000, urban functions are developed and features of a city are

acquired.

Earthquake is one of the factors affecting human life and its

economic activities negatively. The main reason for the earthquakes

in Turkey, which is on the Alpine System, is faults. Defining the

relationship between these fault systems and settlement areas of the

cities with high population, their comparison in terms of earthquake

risks form the main purpose of this study. For this reason, primarily,

the nature of Turkey’s earthquake activities and the reasons for the

increase will be mentioned; the distribution of cities in relation to

“earthquake regions” and changes that have taken place in time will

be inspected. In the final part of the study, mistakes in site planning

and settlement policies will be dealt with and finally, the evolving

problems and results will be mentioned.

For this purpose, Active Fault Map of Turkey (ġAROĞLU et al.,

1992) and Earthquake Zoning Map of Turkey (MPWS, 1996)

41

prepared in respect to the acceleration values by the Turkish,

Ministry of Public Works and Settlement are taken as the basis and

used as the background for ArcView GIS 3.2. On these maps,

earthquakes that belong to the instrumental period and that were at

the strength of Ms=5.5 , causing relatively severe damages are

registered3. Finally, to be able to reflect the periods having great

differentiation in terms of urbanization, city population spread maps

of the years 1927, 1950, 1970, 1980, and 2000 are drawn. These

settlements are evaluated in terms of earthquake regions and the

population they held.

Paleogeographic Evolution of Turkey and its Results

Turkey has reached its recent geomorphological landscape, as a

result of a series of geological events lasting for millions of years. A

large part of Turkey is placed on a peninsula called “Anatolia”. The

formation of Anatolia is explained as related to plaque tectonics.

Anatolian peninsula began to be shaped by the pressure of Laurasia

plaque from the north and Gondwana-Land from the south. As a

result of these two plaques moving towards each other and crashing,

a rise took place on the east half of Anatolia and as the crash

happened faster than the rise, a westward movement also occurred.

In Western Anatolia, this movement was southwards and it was

affected by an enlargement.

In geological past, this movement caused the closing of Palaeo-

Tethys, its division into branches and the formation of Neo-Tethys; it

also caused many areas which make up Anatolia today to be flooded

and then to become a piece of land again. Because of the pressure

from north and south, this movement also resulted in over-crossings,

bending and the formation of big fault zones in the area stuck in the

middle.

3 Information about the seismicity of Turkey is possible to attain from different

sources. Data related to the instrumental period begin in 1900. Information and

records for ancient seismicity of Turkey can be found in SOSYAL et al. 1981, and

AMBRASSEY & FINKEL, 1995; for instrumental period in GENÇOĞLU et al.

1990; AYHAN 1988, and BAĞCI et al. 1991. Summarized information of

Turkey’s seismicity can be reached at www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/sismo.

42

According to that; during the Permian, the entire area of present

Turkey constituted a part of the northern margin of Gondwana-Land

facing Palaeo-Tethys further north (Figure 16).

Figure 16:Generalized Palaeotectonic map of the Permo-Triassic for

Anatolia (ġengör & Yılmaz 1981).

The Permo-Triassic geological data of Turkey records the

subduction of the Palaeo-Tethyan ocean floor along a south-dipping

subduction zone beneath Turkey (Figure 17). This subduction gave

rise to the opening of the Karakaya marginal sea during the early

Triassic, which closed shortly thereafter during the late Triassic.

With Neo-Tethys, opened in its wake, separated a northern strip, the

Cimmerian Continent, from Gondwana-Land. As far as the Palaeo-

Tethyan palaeogeography is concerned, the early Jurassic events

represent natural continuation of the Permian regime. However, at

this time the ocean floor of Palaeo-Tethys was receiving more

abundant flych sediments (ġENGÖR & YILMAZ, 1981: 210).

The early Jurassic was a time of continued disintegration of the

Cimmerian Continent in Turkey that gave birth to the Anatolide-

Tauride Platform and possibly another independent continental

fragments, that of Alanya-Bolkar Mountains-Malatya-Keban-

Pötürge-Bitlis. At this time the southern branch of the Neo-Tethys

presumably continued its growth and the northern branch originated

43

Figure 17: Generalized Palaeotectonic map of the early Jurassic for

Anatolia (ġengör & Yılmaz 1981).

as a Palaeo-Tethyan marginal basin. The most important change that

occurred during the middle Jurassic in Turkey was the terminal

closure of Palaeo-Tethys (Figure 18). Following the closure of

Palaeo-Tethys during the middle Jurassic, continued convergence of

colliding continents led to crustal thickening and Tibetian type

volcanism throughout the eastern part of the entire eastern Pontides

and the Caucasus area. Throughout the late Jurassic-early

Cretaceous, carbonate shelf deposition and the growth of the

continental rise, mainly by turbidities shooting between reefs,

continued in the eastern Pontides (ġENGÖR & YILMAZ, 1981:213-

214).

The late Cretaceous was a time of revolution in the Neo-Tethyan

tectonic development of the Alpides in general and this was so in

Turkey as well (Figure 19). It marked the beginning of the

convergent regime “at all fronts” and was particularly characterized

by the emplacement of spectacular ophiolite nappes of large

dimensions. These nappes moved onto extensive carbonate platforms

44

that began subsiding en masse synchronously with the onset of

obduction (ġENGÖR & YILMAZ, 1981: 221).

Figure 18: Generalized Palaeotectonic map of the middle Jurassic

for Anatolia (ġengör & Yılmaz 1981).

Figure 19: Generalized Palaeotectonic map of the late Cretaceous-

Palaeocene for Anatolia (ġengör & Yılmaz 1981).

45

During the latest Palaeocene-early Eocene, the Anatolide-

Tauride Platform collided with the Pontides. Immediately following

this collision, large scale internal deformation of the Anatolide-

Tauride Platform began that was synchronous with the extensive

rétrocharriage development in the Pontides. The period at the

beginning of the internal imbrication of the Anatolide-Tauride

Platform ia called “phase Anatolienne”. This phase also corresponds

to the beginning at a metamorphism that eventually formed the

Anatolides (ġENGÖR & YILMAZ, 1981: 222). During the late

Eocene to early Miocene interval, the general north-south tightening

of the Turkish orogen continued while the Anatolides were uplifted

and unroofed (Figure 20).

Figure 20: Generalized Palaeotectonic map of the late Eocene-early

Miocene for Anatolia (ġengör & Yılmaz 1981).

Late Eocene in the east and Oligocene in the west cover most of

the area of the crystalline massifs (ġENGÖR & YILMAZ, 1981:

224). The collision of Arabian plaque which was a part of

Gondwana-Land during the late and middle Miocene, with the

Eurasia plaque took place over Anatolia (Figure 21).

46

Figure 21: Generalized Palaeotectonic map of the middle Miocene-

Pliocene for Anatolia (ġengör & Yılmaz 1981).

As the north-south shortening across eastern Turkey continued

between the converging jaws of Eurasia and Arabia, the relatively

soft and irresistant East Anatolian Accretionary Complex took up

much of the initial post-collision convergence by shortening and

thickening. However, the rapidly rising elevations made it eventually

more economic to wedge out of the way a considerable piece of

Turkey, roughly coincident, particularly in the east, with the original

outlines of the Anatolide/Tauride platform, onto the easily

subductable eastern Mediterranean floor (Figure 22).

Thus, the North and East Anatolian Transform Faults, and with

them the Anatolian Plate, originated. The 2000 km long North

Anatolian Transform Fault has also extends to westward propagation

through continental lithosphere over a much longer time-scale (10

Myr). The Aegean extensional regime also began at the same time

due to a relief of the east-west shortening caused by the abrupt south-

westerly bend in the North Anatolian transform fault west of the Sea

of Marmara by north-south extension (ġENGÖR & YILMAZ, 1981:

204-228; TÜYSÜZ et al., 1995: 173-191; ARMIJO et al., 2002: 80-

86).

47

Figure 22: Anatolian plate according to plate tectonics (Erinç, 1982).

Turkey is a part of the Alpine-Himalayan system which is

among the world’s active fault systems. The major reason for the

increase in Turkey’s seismicity is the two faults named the North

Anatolian Fault and the East Anatolian Fault which started to

develop since Middle and late Miocene, secondary faults that are

either parallel to these faults or their extensions and Aegean

extension that caused western Anatolia’s fragmentation. All of these

increase the risk of earthquakes in Turkey.

In Turkey, areas which are the first degree earthquake zone are

around 42% of the total, while the second earthquake zone have

24%, and the third degree earthquake zone have around 18% of the

total area4. This emphasizes the fact that 84% of Turkey has high risk

of earthquake. Comparing Turkey’s active fault map and earthquakes

that are greater than Ms=5.5, it is observed that these faults produce

big earthquakes that cause life and property losses (Figure 23; Table

4).

4 Turkey Earthquake Zones Map is prepared by The Turkish Ministry of Public

Works and Settlement, by combining areas with the same acceleration values and

are determined according to the probability evaluations. It is estimated that a

normal construction will 90% not be appointed to a higher acceleration value than

this, in its durability of 50 years. Turkey earthquake zones are graded according to

the acceleration values as below.

Earthquake Zoning Expected Acceleration

Value

The First Degree More than 0.40 g

The Second Degree 0.40-0.30 g

The Third Degree 0.30-0.20 g

The Fourth Degree 0.20-0.10 g

The Fifth Degree Less than 0.10 g

48

Fig

ure

23:

Act

ive

fault

s, e

arth

quak

e zo

nes

and h

uge

eart

hqu

akes

in T

urk

ey.

49

Earthquakes that cause the highest losses of life and property

take place in the North Anatolian Fault Zone. It is followed by the

East Anatolian Fault Zone and The Aegean Extension. The reason

for lower level of life and property loss in the earthquakes in the

Aegean area is the utilization of engineering services more

intensively as a result of differences in development levels among

regions in Turkey, whereas this level of loss is comparatively higher

in the East Anatolian Earthquake Zone because of the low level of

utilization of engineering services especially in the construction of

rural houses (ÖZMEN et al., 1997: 33).

Outline of Urbanization of Turkey before the 2000’s

In most of the studies on urbanization in Turkey, (DARKOT

1967; TÜMERTEKĠN 1973; EMĠROĞLU 1975; EMĠROĞLU 1981;

DOĞANAY 1986; AVCI 1997), it is emphasized that there are two

directions of urbanization. Many of the settlements will be qualified

as cities as a result of their population and the new functions that

they will acquire, and the number of cities will increase.

Additionally, existing cities will develop even more because of the

opportunities they offer and functions they carry and they will

become bigger attraction centers.

The distribution of population in Turkey, which gained her

freedom with the War of Independence after the collapse of the

Ottoman Empire, was considerably irregular. The most important

reason for this was that a big part of the population who had the

knowledge, talent and capital to continue economic activities had to

be held away from economic activities as a result of the Balkan War

and the World War I that took place at the end of the 19th century

and the beginning of the 20th century. In 1927, the population of the

country5 was 13.6 million, and the distribution and characteristics of

5 As this study takes the criterion of population as its focus in choosing the cities, it

is necessary to mention the history of censuses in Turkey briefly. The first census

carried out in the lands comprising the present day Turkey was in the Ottoman

Empire in 1831. This census had the goal of determining the population who could

be recruited and taxed (KARAL, 1997: 22). Although there had been some

attempts at conducting censuses, these cannot be considered sound. The population

data concerning earlier periods are mere speculations. The first census in a modern

sense was conducted in 1927 after the declaration of the Republic.

50

this population were highly heterogeneous. Many areas in the

country appeared with a population of less density. There were only

66 settlements that had population over 10.000 and 16.38% of the

total population lived in the cities6.

Ġstanbul, which was the capital of Roman Empire, Byzantium

and Ottoman Empires, had the feature of being the most important

center. Although having great damages due to earthquakes in its

history, Ġstanbul7 continues to be the current social and economic

center. While selecting spots for a settlement in Anatolia, because of

the economic advantages it creates, fertile plains or locations in their

close environs were preferred. However, the biggest problem here, as

mentioned above, is that the important amounts of these plains were

created by tectonic activities.

Studying the distribution of the cities in relation to earthquake

zones, it is observed that most of the settlements are in areas with

high earthquake risk. In the study, so as to be able to specially

present the development through time, the data of the census years

that have great importance in terms of urbanization were evaluated.

When the distribution of the cities was studied according to the data

of 1927, which was the year of the first census of the Republic

6 Within the borders of present day Turkey, prior to the 20th century, the numbers

of urban centers were not many. In Ġstanbul, which was one of the biggest among

these, in the beginning of the 16th century the population was about 97.000, and in

the beginning of the 20th about 80.000. The other important cities were Bursa,

Edirne, Diyarbakır, Ankara, Konya, Sivas, Kayseri, Ġzmir, Erzurum and Trabzon

(BEHAR, 1996: 7). 7 In various sources, it is attested that the city of Ġstanbul was founded in the 7th

century B.C. After Ġstanbul was adopted as the new capital of the Roman Empire

by Emperor Constantinos I, the development of the settlement was begun, and in

May 11, 330, the official inauguration took place. There are historical records of 48

damaging earthquakes during a period of 770 years until the year 1000. The

earthquakes of 358, 437, 477, 478, 557, 740, 796, 869 and 989 are the ones which

occurred on the section of the North Anatolian Fault in the Sea of Marmara and

these caused severe damage. Although not all of these earthquakes occurred in

Ġstanbul, the city was still highly affected (DEMĠRKENT, 2001: 51-65). During

the following periods, there have been many earthquakes. Of these, especially the

1766 and 1894 earthquakes caused great losses of life (AFYONCU & METE,

2001: 85, ÖZTĠN, 1994: 23). The most recent one was the 1999 earthquake in the

Ġzmit which affected Ġstanbul and resulted in life and property loss, specifically in

the western part of the city (ERDĠK, 2004).

51

period, it was observed that Istanbul, Ankara, Ġzmir, Adana and

Bursa were relatively large settlements. Other cities were placed

scattered mainly in Aegean and Central Anatolian Regions (Figure

24). A population of 680.000 lived in first degree earthquake zones; a

population over 1 million inhabited second degree earthquake zones.

This indicated that 2/3 of the population living in cities and more

than 10% of the total population of Turkey increase of lived in places

with high earthquake risk.

One of the factors which increase urbanization is the rapid

population. During the years of the foundation of the republic, the

country which had experienced sequential wars had a population of

13.2 million. A “population growth policy” was applied to overcome

this scarcity of population. The continuity of high birth rate against

the decline in early deaths due to diseases and malnutrition caused a

rapid increase in population. Although, during World War II, the rise

was on the decline for some time, the post-war years witnessed a

rapid increase again. The insufficient development of resources the

increase of population in relation to resulted in a migration

movement of this population towards the urban areas8. As a result of

this type of urbanization movement, generally, the emergence of

problems of housing and unemployment are reported. Actually, a

more serious problem, which is usually neglected, is the encouraged

development of the huge industrial areas on the high risk earthquake

zones.

One of the factors which increase urbanization is the rapid

population. During the years of the foundation of the republic, the

country which had experienced sequential wars had a population of

13.2 million. A “population growth policy” was applied to overcome

this scarcity of population. The continuity of high birth rate against

the decline in early deaths due to diseases and malnutrition caused a

8 As the rise of per capita national income, a register of economic development

against the rapid rise of population, was insufficient, a shift from the ban on giving

birth control information to a “birth control” plan of the second half of the 1960’s,

which can be defined as an approach to led the families have as many children as

they could look after, was realized. The Second Five-Year Development Plan in

Turkey which came into force to be active between the years 1968-1972 considers

urbanization as a beneficial movement since it would transform the social structure

as well as industrialization (SPO 1964, SPO 1969).

52

F

igu

re 2

4:

Urb

an p

opula

tion w

hen

ear

thquak

e zo

nes

are

consi

der

ed (

1927

).

53

rapid increase in population. Although, during World War II, the rise

was on the decline for some time, the post-war years witnessed a

rapid increase again. The insufficient development of resources the

increase of population in relation to resulted in a migration

movement of this population towards the urban areas9. As a result of

this type of urbanization movement, generally, the emergence of

problems of housing and unemployment are reported. Actually, a

more serious problem, which is usually neglected, is the encouraged

development of the huge industrial areas on the high risk earthquake

zones.

After the 1950’s, the cities in Turkey rapidly started to develop in

terms of their numbers and sizes (Figure 25). There were 104 cities

in 1950. 1/5 of the total population (18.59%) was living in those

cities. For the first time, a settlement with a population over a million

emerged when the population of Ġstanbul exceeded 1 million after

this date. The foundations of the important industrial areas of Turkey

started to be constructed during this period.

The main development took place after the 1950’s and in the

1970’s significant industrial zones developed. The 1927-1950

periods does not mark an intense urbanization. Due to that reason, we

cannot observe a big change in the ratio neither in the urban

population nor in the total population living in earthquake zones

according to the 1950 census data. However, in the following years,

the ratio of the people living in the earthquake zones to total urban

population would drop while their share in the total population would

constantly rise.

The 1970’s are characterized by a continuing rapid population

increase. It is a speed close to the former years but a contrast to the

accelerated increase in family planning activities. In these years, the

settlements showed great increase in their numbers and populations,

9 As the rise of per capita national income, a register of economic development

against the rapid rise of population, was insufficient, a shift from the ban on giving

birth control information to a “birth control” plan of the second half of the 1960’s,

which can be defined as an approach to led the families have as many children as

they could look after, was realized. The Second Five-Year Development Plan in

Turkey which came into force to be active between the years 1968-1972 considers

urbanization as a beneficial movement since it would transform the social structure

as well as industrialization (SPO 1964, SPO 1969).

54

F

igu

re 2

5:

Urb

an p

opula

tion w

hen

ear

thquak

e zo

nes

are

co

nsi

der

ed (

19

50

).

55

compared to the 1950’s. In 1970, the number of settlements with the

population over 10,000 is 236; the ratio of the population living in

those places to the total population is 33.37% (Figure 26). The period

in which the Ġstanbul Metropolitan Area started to shape up, which

extends from Saray on the west to the Adapazarı plain on the east

today, is this one. This area is on the west half of the North Anatolian

Fault. Besides, the environs of Adana and Ġzmir, which have high

earthquake risks, started to be important industrial areas. 70% of the

urban population was living on the first and second degree

earthquake zones. This constituted more than 20% of the total

population.

In 1980, the number of cities rose to 322, the number of population

living in those cities rose to 44.7 million (Figure 27). The analysis of

the population data of 1980 shows a decline in the speed of migration

movement towards the urban areas from the rural thereafter.

The annual urban population increase ratio which was around 0.25%

since 1960 declined to 0.20% during the period of 1975-1980. An

important reason of that is the encouragement of agricultural

production as a result of economic policies, together with some

social and economic actions which enabled the rural population to

stay in the rural. The hard living conditions and unemployment in

especially the big cities may be cited as the most important reasons

of this escape from these settlements. However, the urban areas on

the first and second degree earthquake zones keep their importance.

Against the rate of urban population dropping down below 10%, the

urban/total population ratio reached nearly 30%.

Urbanization in 2000s

The 65% (43.9 million) of the 67.8 million population of Turkey

lives in the cities according to the 2000 Census. The annual

population increase speed between 1990-2000 periods is 10.72‰.

This figure is quite low when compared with the increase rates of

other time periods of Turkey. The annual population increase

between 1980-1990 periods was 23.3‰. The nearest figure to this

was the rates of 1940-1945 periods, which is explained with the

World War II conditions (Avcı 1997: 54). The general decline of the

speed of the annual population increase in Turkey is also observed in

the cities. The urban annual population growth speed dropped to

56

F

igu

re 2

6:

Urb

an p

opula

tion w

hen

ear

thquak

e zo

nes

are

con

sider

ed (

1970

).

57

Box 1: Gediz earthquake 1970, Aegean Region, West Turkey.

Date: March 28, 1970

Ms= 7,2

Dead: 1086

Number of damage built=19291

Source: ERĠNÇ et al . 1970

58

Box 2: Burdur earthquake 1971, Mediterranean Region, West

Turkey

Date: May 12, 1971

Ms= 5,9

Dead: 57


Source: ERĠNÇ et al. 1971.

59

Box 3: 1971 Bingöl and 1976 Çaldıran-Muradiye earthquakes, East

Anatolia Region, East Turkey.

1971 Bingöl

Date: May 22, 1971

Ms= 5,8

Dead: 878

Number of damage built=9111 Source: BĠLGĠN, ERER & GÖÇMEN, 1972.

1976

Çaldıran-

Muradiye

Date: May 12, 1971

Ms= 5,9

Dead: 57

Number of damage built=3227 Source: TUNCEL et al. 1978.

60

Box 4: 1984 Erzurum earthquake. Eastern Anatolia Region, East

Turkey

Date: October 30, 1984

Ms= 6,9

Dead: 1155


Source: HOġGÖREN et al 1984.

61

F

igu

re 2

7:

Urb

an p

opula

tion w

hen

ear

thquak

e zo

nes

are

consi

der

ed (

1980

).

62

Box 5: 1995 Dinar earthquakes, Aegean Region, West Turkey.

Date: October 01, 1995

Ms= 6,1

Dead: 90

Number of damage built=14156 Source: SELÇUK BĠRĠCĠK, CEYLAN & ÜNLÜ, 1996.

Source: http://dinar.org.

63

Box 6: 1998 Adana-Ceyhan earthquakes, Mediterranean Region.

Date: June 27, 1998

Ms= 6,2

Dead: 146

Number of damage built=31463 Source: EFE & SEKĠN, 1998.

Source: AFET, 1998

64

Box 7: 1999 Kocaeli earthquake, Marmara Region, West Turkey.

Source: ĠĠKK, 2000

Date: August 17, 1999

Ms= 7,8

Dead: 17480

Number of damage built= 73342

Sources : HÜRRĠYET, 2005; SAĞLAMER et al, 1999.

65

53.2‰ between years 1980-1990, and to 28.3‰ between years 1990-

2000. Settlements with a population of over 10.000 comprise more

than half of the population in Turkey. There are 5 cities with a

population over 1 million and about 1/3 of the total population of the

country is living in the Marmara region (Figure 28). Urban

population ratios are: on the First degree earthquake zone 32.5%, on

the Second degree earthquake zone 39.9%, on the Third degree

earthquake zone 12.5%, and 13.7% on the Fourth degree earthquake

zone. On the Fifth degree earthquake zone, which is relatively safer

in terms of earthquake risk, only 0.89% of the total population was

living in the cities. This was 1.4% of the urban population.

Results

Earthquakes, which cause most natural disasters, can set off

chaos in the crowded slums of poor countries and topple badly-

constructed, badly-located buildings. In rich countries, ageing

populations and a growing reliance on technology are weakening the

defenses of towns and cities. There is also more of value to be

destroyed (ERDĠK, 1997). Turkey has to live with the reality of the

earthquake. There is not any known way to stop or pacify this

disaster. But, by taking necessary precautions, it is possible to

minimize the risks. There are lots of examples for this in the world.

Earthquakes may cause severe damage in Turkey, especially in

the rural areas where buildings do not get engineering services. On

the other hand, although there is a more intense compulsory

engineering service demand in big cities, economic obstacles and

lack of good inspection obstruct the efficient use of these services.

As a result, 32.000 people in 1939 Erzincan earthquake and 17.000

in 1999 Ġzmit earthquake lost their lives.

We can not talk about a regulated and functional urban

development in Turkey. Mostly, over populated settlements which

are forced by certain economic conditions appear. The population

data analysis show some settlements’ populations have risen from

500-600 to 10.000 within 10-15 years. This rapid population

movement in such a short time signals an unplanned growth, rather

than a sound development, which brings many problems ranging

from availability of job opportunities to lack of services. The 65% of

66

F

igu

re 2

8:

Urb

an p

opula

tion w

hen

ear

thquak

e zo

nes

are

consi

der

ed (

2000

).

67

the total population in Turkey lives in the cities. When compared

with the world in general, this population ratio is close to the figures

of industrialized countries.

A huge portion of the cities in Turkey do not have sufficient

infrastructure both in their old urban centers and newly developing

areas. An important number of those settlements developed without a

plan. Especially covering the needs of electricity, water,

transportation and similar services of the “patched” settlements at the

peripheries of the cities calls for huge expenses. Bringing services to

these areas which are not suitable for settlements can not be realized,

mostly due to the weak financial structures of the municipalities.

The viewpoint of numerical increase and areal growth in the

general description of urbanization in Turkey will be holding its

validity today and in the near future. But the local administrations

have to make realistic plans envisaging this development. Because of

the slowness of the decision making process in preparing the plans,

the unplanned developments are realized before the preparation of

legal regulations. The urban plans in Turkey pass through so many

bureaucratic stages that they lose their actuality when they are

enforced. The urban plans which are made by taking the real

capacities and requirements into consideration, rather than political

concerns, will be more suitable and applicable for long terms. So as

to realize this, the financial structure and technical staff of the local

administrations should be improved.

In deciding the locations for the cities and in determining their

development axis, decision making should be based on scientific

facts. A great number of the important cities in Turkey are located on

fault lines. The majority of the urban settlements in the Marmara

Region, which hold 1/3 of the population of Turkey, are placed on or

very near to the Northern Anatolia Fault Zone. Tekirdağ, Ġstanbul,

Ġzmit and Adapazarı are the first ones to mention of these

settlements. On the west, the cities located on the grabens of the

Aegean Region (Ġzmir, on the western continuity of the Gediz

graben; Aydın, Nazilli, etc., on the Büyük Menderes graben)

constitute areas covering huge masses of population. Similarly, the

greatest urban settlements of Eastern Turkey like Erzurum, Erzincan

and Malatya are on or near the important fault systems. From this

68

aspect, there is a necessity of very efficient planning of all the cities

in Turkey which will be founded or developed.

As long as this unplanned development of the cities continues,

the adverse effects will go on increasing. To prevent this, supplying

better living conditions and services to the people at the places they

live before they start to migrate is of great importance. The plans

which creates or improves new economic potentials should be

avoided especially on the 1st degree earthquake zones. This will

prevent the accumulation of new population masses in these areas.

Another point about planning is the determination of the location of

industrial investments. As nearly all Turkey is fragmented by faults,

the areas with high risk of earthquake increase. Only a balanced

distribution of the investments will prevent the accumulation in

certain centers. That will also mean the apportionment of risks.

69

Table 4: Important earthquakes in Turkey (Ms≥5.5).

70

Table 4 (Continued): Important earthquakes in Turkey (Ms≥5.5).

Source : AFET, 2005.

71

References

AFET (1998). 27 Haziran 1998 Adana-Ceyhan Depremi Ön Rapor

(http://www.sismo.deprem.gov.tr/Adana /Image21.gif. Last

accessed 18.12.1998).

AFET (2005). http://www.sismo.deprem.gov.tr/VERITABANI/

katalog.php. Last accessed 09.08.2005.

AFYONCU, E. & METE, Z. (2001). “1766 Ġstanbul depremi ve

toplum yaĢantısına tesirleri”. In Tarih Boyunca Anadolu’da

Doğal Afetler ve Deprem Semineri 22–23 Mayıs 2000. Ġstanbul

Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih AraĢtırma Merkezi,

Ġstanbul.

AGUILAR, A.G. & WARD, P.M. (2003). “Globalization, regional

development, and mega-city expansion in Latin America:

Analyzing Mexico City’s peri-urban hinterland”. Cities 20 (3):

3-21.

AMBRASEY, N. N. & FINKEL, C. F. (1995). The seismicity of

Turkey and adjacent areas. A historical review 1500-1800.

Ġstanbul: Eren Yayıncılık.

ARMIJO, R., MEYER, B., NAVARRO, S., KING, G. & BARKA,

A. (2002). “Asymmetric slip partitioning the sea of Marmara

pull-apart: A clue to propagation processes of the north

Anatolian fault?” Terra Nova 14 (2): 80-86.

AVCI, S. (1997). “Distribution of cities and urban population in

Turkey (1927-1990)”. Review of the Department of Geography

University of İstanbul 4: 53-79.

AYHAN, E. (1988). “Türkiye’de 1881–1988 Yılları Arasında

OluĢmuĢ ġiddetli Depremler (Ms=5.5 ) ve Sonuçları”. Deprem

Araştırma Bülteni 61: 5–53.

BAĞCI, G., YATMAN, A., ÖZDEMĠR, S. & ALTIN, N. (1991).

“Türkiye’de hasar yapan depremler”. Deprem Araştırma Bülteni

69: 113–126.

BEHAR, C. (1996). The population of the Ottoman Empire and

Turkey 1500-1927. Ankara: State Institute of Statistics Prime

Ministry Republic of Turkey.

72

BĠLGĠN, T, ERER, S. & GÖÇMEN, K. (1972). 22 Mayıs 1971

Bingöl Depremi Tatbikî Jeomorfoloji Etüdü. Ġstanbul : Ġstanbul

Üniversitesi.

DARKOT, B. (1967). “ġehir ayırımında nüfus sayısı ve fonksiyon

kriterleri”. İstanbul Üniversitesi Coğrafya Enstitüsü Dergisi 16:

3–8.

DEMĠRKENT, I. (2001). “Bizans kaynaklarına göre IV-XI.

yüzyıllarda Ġstanbul ve çevresinde depremler”. In Tarih Boyunca

Anadolu’da Doğal Afetler ve Deprem Semineri 22–23 Mayıs

2000. Ġstanbul: Ġstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih

AraĢtırma Merkezi.

DOĞANAY, H. (1986). “1980 Genel nüfus sayımına göre

Türkiye’de Ģehirli nüfus ve Ģehir sayısındaki artıĢlar (1960–

1980)”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Araştırma

Dergisi 15: 1–22.

DOW, K. (2000). “Social dimensions of gradients in urban

ecosystems”. Urban Ecosystems 4: 255-275.

DÜNDAR, O. (2001). “Models of urban transformation informal

housing in Ankara”. Cities 18 (6): 391-401.

EFE, R. & SEKĠN, S. (1998). 27 Haziran 1998 Adana-Ceyhan

Depremi (Adana-Ceyhan Earthquake 27 June 1998). Ġstanbul:

Fatih Üniversitesi.

EMĠROĞLU, M. (1975). “Türkiye coğrafi bölgelerine göre Ģehir

yerleĢmeleri ve Ģehirli nüfus”. Coğrafya Araştırmaları Dergisi

7: 125–157.

EMĠROĞLU, M. (1981). “Türkiye’de son sayımlar ve kentleĢme

olayının boyutları”. Coğrafya Araştırmaları Dergisi 10: 43–82.

EMRE, Ö., HERECE, E., DOĞAN, A., PARLAK, O., ÖZAKSOY,

V., ÇIPLAK, R. & ÖZALP, S. (2003). “Bingöl-Karlıova-

Erzincan üçgeni içersinde meydana gelen 27 ġubat 2003

Pülümür (MW=6,1) ve 1 Mayıs 2003 Bingöl (MW=6,4)

depremlerinin değerlendirilmesi”. Türkiye Kuvaterneri Çalıştayı

IV, 29-30 Mayıs 2003: 18-19, Ġstanbul.

Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc (ESRI), ArcView GIS

3.2. Redlands. CA.

73

ERDĠK, M. (1997). “Making cities safer”. Unesco Courier October

1997 (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/is_1997

_Oct/ ai_20150225#continue. Last accessed 08.08.2005).

ERDĠK, M. (2004). Comprehensive report on 1999 Kocaeli and

Düzce (Turkey) earthquakes, Kandilli Observatory and

Earthquake Research Institute. Ġstanbul (http://www.koeri.

boun.edu.tr/depremmuh/kocaelireport.pdf. Last accessed

09.02.2004).

ERĠNÇ, S., BĠLGĠN, T., BENER, M., SUNGUR, K., ERER, S.,

GÖÇMEN, K. (1970). 28 Mart 1970 Gediz Depremi Tatbikî

Jeomorfolojik Etüd. Ġstanbul: Ġstanbul Üniversitesi.

ERĠNÇ, S., BENER, M., SUNGUR, K., GÖÇMEN, K. (1971). 12

Mayıs 1971 Burdur Depremi Tatbikî Jeomorfolojk Etüdü.

Ġstanbul: Ġstanbul Üniversitesi.

ERĠNÇ, S. (1982). Jeomorfoloji I. Ġstanbul: Ġstanbul Üniversitesi.

EVERSON, J. A., & FIZTGERALD, B.P. (1977). Inside the city.

Hong Kong: Longman Group Limited.

GEDĠKLĠ, B. (2005). “Urbanization and land-use planning in

Adapazari (Turkey) reconsidered after the 1999 earthquake”.

Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 20 (1): 79-91.

GENÇOGLU, S., ĠNAN, E. & GÜLER, H. (1990). Türkiye’nin

Deprem Tehlikesi. Ankara: TMMOB Jeofizik Mühendisleri

Odası.

HOġGÖREN, M.Y., NĠġANCI, A., SELÇUK BĠRĠCĠK, A. &

BĠLGĠN, A. (1984). 30 Ekim 1983 Erzurum-Kars Depremi.

Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi Basımevi.

HÜRRĠYET (2005). http://arsiv.hurriyetim.com.tr/fix98/

deprem/depremgaleri.htm. Last accessed 09.08.2005.

Ġstanbul Ġl Koordinasyon Kurulu (ĠĠKK) (2000). Deprem Semineri.

Ġstanbul: TMMOB Ġstanbul Ġl Koordinasyon Kurulu.

KAM NG, M., & HILLS P. (2003). “World cities or great cities? A

comparative study of five Asian metropolis”. Cities 20 (3): 151-

165.

KARAL, E. Z. (1997). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İlk Nüfus Sayımı

1831. Ankara: T.C. BaĢbakanlık Devlet Ġstatistik Enstitüsü.

74

Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (MPWS) (1986).

Earthquake zoning map of Turkey. Ankara: Turkish Republic

Ministry of Public Works and Settlement.

OUCHO, J. O. (2001). “Urban population trends”. Habitat Debate 7

(2) (http://www.unhabitat.org/hd/hdv7n2/ index.htm. Last

accessed 12.08.2003).

ÖZÇAĞLAR, A. (1997). “1995 yılında Türkiye’deki belediye

örgütlü yerleĢmelerin coğrafî dağılıĢı”. Ankara Üniversitesi

Türkiye Coğrafyası Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi 6:

243–272.

ÖZÇAĞLAR, A. (1996). “Türkiye’nin idari coğrafyası bakımından

köy, bucak, ilçe, il ve belde kavramları üzerine düĢünceler”.

Coğrafya Araştırmaları Dergisi: 7–24.

ÖZMEN, B., NURLU, M. & GÜLER, H. (1997). Coğrafi Bilgi

Sistemi İle Deprem Bölgelerinin İncelenmesi. Ankara: Afet ĠĢleri

Genel Müdürlüğü.

ÖZTĠN, F. (1994). 10 Temmuz 1894 İstanbul Depremi Raporu.

Ankara: Deprem AraĢtırma Dairesi.

SAĞLAMER, G. BARKA, A., SAĞLAMER, A., BODUROĞLU,

H., KARADOĞAN, F., ANSAL, A., EREN, Ġ., CELEP, Z.,

GĠRĠTLĠOĞLU, C., ÜNÜGÜR, M., DĠKBAġ, A., TÜYSÜZ, O.,

AKYÜZ, S., ALTUNEL, E. & SUNAL, G. (1999). “17 Ağustos

1999 Kocaeli depremi Ġstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi ön

değerlendirme raporu. Ġstanbul: Ġstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.

SEZER, L.Ġ. (2003). “Marmara bölgesinde deprem aktivitesi ve riski

(Seismic activity and risk in the Marmara region”. Aegean

Geographical Journal 12 (1): 29-38.

SELÇUK BĠRĠCĠK, A., CEYLAN, M.A. & ÜNLÜ, M. (1996). 1

Ekim 1995 Dinar Depremi (1 October 1995-Dinar Earthquake).

Ġstanbul.

SOYSAL, H., SĠPAHĠOĞLU, S., KOLÇAK, D. & ALTINOK, Y.

(1981). Türkiye ve Çevresinin Tarihsel Deprem Kataloğu (M.Ö.

2100-M.S. 1900). Ġstanbul: Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknik

AraĢtırma Kurumu Proje No: TBAG 341.

State Institute of Statistics Prime Ministry Republic of Turkey (SIS)

(1928). Population de la Turquie, D’après le Recensement du 28

75

Octobre 1927. Ankara: République Turque Presidence du

Conseil Office Central de Statistique.


(1982). Census of Population 12.10.1980. Ankara: State Institute

of Statistics Prime Ministry Republic of Turkey.


(2000). 2000 Census of Population (unpublished data). Ankara:

State Institute of Statistics Prime Ministry Republic of Turkey.

State Planning Organization (SPO) (1964). First five-year

development plan 1963-1967. Ankara: Republic of Turkey


State Planning Organization (SPO) (1969). Second five-year

development plan 1968-1972. Ankara: Republic of Turkey


ġAROĞLU, F. & YILMAZ, Y. (1986). “Doğu Anadolu’da

Neotektonik Dönemdeki Jeolojik Evrim ve Havza Modelleri”.

MTA Dergisi 107: 73-95.

ġAROĞLU, F., EMRE, Ö. & KUġÇU, Ġ. (1992). Active Fault Map

in Turkey 1:2.000.000. Ankara: General Directorate of Mineral

Research and Exploration.

ġENGÖR, A. M. C. & YILMAZ, Y. (1981). “Tethyan evolution of

Turkey: A plate tectonic approach”. Tectonophysica 75: 181-

241.

TORRY, W.I. (1980). “Urban earthquake hazard in developing

countries: Squatter settlements and the outlook for Turkey”.

Urban Ecology 4 (4): 317-327.

TUNCEL, M. ERER, S., SERGÜN, Ü. & GÖÇMEN, K. (1978). 24

Kasım 1976 Çaldıran-Muradiye Depremi. Ġstanbul: Ġstanbul

Üniversitesi

TÜMERTEKĠN, E. (1973). Urbanization and urban functions in

Turkey. Istanbul: Istanbul University Institute of Geography.

TÜYSÜZ, O., AKYÜZ, S. & EYĠDOĞAN, H. (2003). “1 Mayıs

2003 Bingöl Depremi”. Türkiye Kuvaterneri Çalıştayı IV, 29-30

Mayıs 2003: 37-43, Ġstanbul.

76

TÜYSÜZ, O., DELLALOĞLU, A. A. & TERZĠOĞLU, N. (1995).

“A magmatic belt within the Neo-Tethyan suture zone and its

role in the tectonic evolution of northern Turkey”.

Tectonophysics 243 (1-2): 173-191.

TÜYSÜZ, O. & ERTURAÇ, M.K. (2005). “Kuzey Anadolu fayının

Devrez çayı ile Soruk çayı arasındaki kesiminin özellikleri ve

fayın morfolojik geliĢimindeki etkileri”. Türkiye Kuvaterneri

Sempozyumu, TURQUA V, 2-5 Haziran 2005: 26-40, Ġstanbul.

UN-HABITAT (2001). An urbanized world. The state of the world’s

cities report 2001, United Nations Human Settlements

Programme, New York. (http://www. unchs.org/Ġstanbul+5/10-

11.pdf. Last accessed 12.08. 2003).

Two Papers of Urbanization in Turkey

Documents

Transcript of Two Papers of Urbanization in Turkey