t24.com.tr
Turkey's Earthquake Preparedness: Urgent Need for Systemic Change
Professor Naci Görür urges Turkey to fundamentally change its earthquake strategy, citing insufficient earthquake-resistant urban development and predicting severe impacts on coastal cities like Istanbul, Gebze, Kocaeli, and Yalova during a potential Marmara earthquake.
- How can Turkey's current approach to earthquake preparedness be improved to transition from a reactive to a proactive strategy?
- Görür's concerns stem from the recent devastating earthquakes in February, where hundreds perished due to inadequate preparedness. He points to a reactive approach focused on damage control rather than proactive prevention. His proposed strategy involves detailed research on regional fault lines to assess vulnerability, and to create earthquake-resistant cities, requiring collaboration between government, local authorities, and citizens.
- What immediate actions are necessary to mitigate the potential impact of a future major earthquake in Turkey, given the current state of preparedness?
- Professor Naci Görür warns that Turkey is unprepared for a major earthquake, highlighting insufficient progress in earthquake-resistant urban development. He emphasizes the need for a fundamental shift in the national earthquake strategy, advocating for comprehensive research into fault lines and proactive measures to fortify urban infrastructure before a disaster strikes. This lack of preparedness, he claims, will continue to result in substantial losses.
- What long-term systemic changes are required to ensure the safety and resilience of Turkish cities against future earthquakes, considering the potential impacts on various regions?
- Görür predicts that a potential Marmara earthquake will significantly impact coastal cities like Istanbul, Gebze, Kocaeli, and Yalova, with varying degrees of impact on surrounding areas like Tekirdağ, Bursa, and Edirne. He stresses that earthquake preparedness should be comprehensive, focusing on nationwide improvements to infrastructure regardless of specific predicted impact areas. Failure to adopt this holistic approach will likely result in continued significant loss of life and property in future seismic events.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames Professor Görür's warnings as urgent and critical, emphasizing the potential for significant damage and loss of life. This framing is effective in conveying the seriousness of the situation, but it could also be perceived as alarmist or overly negative depending on the reader. The headline focuses directly on the warnings, prioritizing the negative implications.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, accurately reflecting Professor Görür's statements. While the article describes the situation as urgent, this reflects the expert's assessment and isn't presented as biased opinion. Terms like "devastating" or "catastrophic" are used to highlight the potential scale of the impact, which accurately reflect the subject matter.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses on Professor Görür's statements and doesn't include other expert opinions or data on earthquake preparedness in Turkey. While this is understandable given the focus on his perspective, omitting other viewpoints could limit the overall understanding of the situation. The article also does not delve into the specifics of current government policies or initiatives related to earthquake preparedness, focusing instead on the need for systemic change.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a clear dichotomy between the current state of earthquake preparedness in Turkey (inadequate) and the ideal state (comprehensive, systemic changes). While this simplification effectively emphasizes the urgency, it may overlook nuances in existing policies or regional variations in preparedness levels.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the lack of preparedness for earthquakes in Turkey, particularly in urban areas. Professor Görür criticizes the insufficient efforts to create earthquake-resistant cities, stating that current work focuses on damage control rather than prevention. This directly impacts SDG 11, which aims to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. The consequences of inadequate preparedness, as evidenced by the significant loss of life in the recent earthquakes, hinder progress towards achieving this goal.