Izmir, Turkey – The Pearl of the Aegean
Janet P. Santos
Walden University
August 16, 2014

Izmir became the third largest city in the country of Turkey, which is comparable in area to the state of Massachusetts and is approximately size as the state of Texas. During both, the Roman and Byzantine - Ottoman Periods in which Izmir was averted from adversary possession on September 9, 1922 during the War of Independence (Index Mundi. com, 2013).
Turkey is located in the northeastern quadrant of the Mediterranean Sea and also in the Southeast portion of Europe in addition to the Southwest segment of Asia. It also touches to the North near the Black Sea, in addition to the West near the Aegean Sea. Turkey also neighbors countries such as Greece and Bulgaria, which borders to her west. Along the North and Northwest, and through the Black Sea she has the following countries bordering: Russia, Ukraine, and Romania. To the East she has the following countries bordering: Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran. Finally to the South she has Syria and Iraq bordering her. Lastly, the following bodies of water divide her and they include: the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara, and the Bosporus (Index Mundi. com, 2013).
Izmir, just like the entire country of Turkey, has many disadvantages primarily due to their geological weakness known as the Aegean plate boundaries (Komuscu, 1995). Turkey sits literally amid two massive tectonic plates. The Eurasia and The Africa/Arabia, which are inevitably hurtling into one another, from the north towards the south. The Anatolian plate, where the Turkish mainland lies, is being clutched upwardly near the Aegean Sea (Kutluca A. K., 2004). Both plates are located directly below Turkey and thus lead to this country’s massive history of avalanches, floods, landslides, droughts and earthquakes (Orhon, 1991).
A 7.2 Mw earthquake had once again struck Turkey, this time along the Iranian border on October 23, 2011. Much damage had occurred as was expected with any quake above 7.0.Now with the death toll quickly rising above 360 and fearing to rise even higher, and over 1300 injured in the one of the fiercest earthquakes to strike this region in modern years, rescue teams knew they had to work swiftly to clear over 2500 collapsed buildings and find those still trapped (RADIUS Project Group, 2001).
The problem I have found in researching through several of my sources, is that Izmir, or rather Turkey as an entire Country, is lacking the initiative to adequately develop both pre- and post-disaster strategies which are effectively sustained by municipal establishments. Secondly, there are currently no building supervisors in the field to maintain efficient quality control building safety modifications. Finally, detailed risk analysis and report archives regarding the natural hazard risky areas of Turkey would be deemed extremely indispensable.
With its strategic location amidst two continents, Turkey finds itself in the midst of two significantly active faults, The Eurasia and The Africa/Arabia, which are unavoidably plunging towards one another. The two faults, which are nicknamed the North Anatolian Fault (NAF) and are regrettably positioned beneath the Turkish continent, 92% of the 81 provinces have been prone to earthquakes and other leading hazard risks (Kutluca A. K., 2004). Earthquakes account for approximately 76% of all of the natural disasters which occur in Izmir Turkey and the surrounding 80 other Provinces (RADIUS Project Group, 2001). Other hazard risks for Turkey include structural damages and collapse as direct result of natural disasters (Kutluca A. K., 2004); whereas a smaller portion of disasters in Izmir, Turkey were as a result of the following causes according to the Ministry of Public Works of Turkey (RADIUS Project Group, 2001):
Izmir is by far one of the most highly dynamic cities in terms of tectonic activity primarily due in part to the highly complex activities of the inconsistent tectonic plates. According to researchers, it is highly unlikely that the two active faults will alter their current paths in the coming years. In fact, it has been noted that the right lateral NAF has now averaged an annual slippage rate of approximately 20 mm which geologists have been measuring utilizing a GPS. This continual slippage has had a drastic effect on the communities and economy of Turkey as noted by the devastating rise in earthquake activity in Table 1. DATE | MAGNITUDE | LENGTH | EARTHQUAKE NAME | December 26, 1939 | 8.0 | 360 km | Erzincan | December 20,1942 | 7.1 | 50 km | Erbaa | November 26,1943 | 7.6 | 280 km | Tosya | February 01,1944 | 7.3 | 165 km | Bolu-Gerede | May 26, 1957 | 7.0 | 80 km | Abant | July 22, 1967 | 7.1 | 102 km | Mudurnu Valley | August 17, 1999 | 7.8 | 320 km | | Table 1 depicts the seven largest earthquakes registering ≥ 7.0 magnitudes in Turkish history during 1939 - 99:

Figure 1 shows the activity of the Anatolian and Arabian plates which cross one another and form the earthquakes in/around the vicinity of the Anatolian Fault:
Figure 1: Courtesy of McClusky & et al, 2000

Figure 1: Courtesy of McClusky & et al, 2000

Over a century has past in the country of Turkey, whose inhabitants reside unsure of when the next earthquake will strike . . . more than 130 earthquakes to date have targeted this country, striking beneath it’s layers of complex faults and destroying the lives of more than 84,000 residents, while injurying another 150,000+, severaly destroying well over half-a-million structures (Kuterdem, 2010). This amounts to a total loss for the Turks to a combined total in U.S. currency of $20 billion (HDN, 2014). Yet simply stated, predicting earthquakes is not a science and will never be due to the instability of the faults and fault lines (Akman, N & Ural, D, 2001). The majority of seismologists have said that the ability to predict an actual earthquake is inconceivable anytime soon. The predictable portion is when the actual shaking has occurred once any two faults pass one another and the actual rupturing has occurred (FEMA, 2014). In Turkish boroughs, anywhere communities, structures and events are extremely concentrated, any category of hazards has the potential to generate greater amounts of bodily harm and fatalities then one would find when the communities, structures and events were scattered (Kuterdem, 2010). This is especially true of earthquakes in regions such as Turkey (Kuterdem, 2010).
Turkey, currently has a very low-to-moderate earthquake early warning detection system. When the system is properly functioning it will detect the initial “shaking” of an earthquake; this is the point when seismic waves have been released from the central core or epicenter of the earthquake (HDN, 2014). Across the United States and various other more advanced countries such as China and Japan there does exist more advanced technologies which detect moderate to large earthquakes so quickly even prior to an earthquakes arrival (HDN, 2014).
Currently there exists two (2) models of Earthquake Early Warning systems (EEWs), the single station approach and the network approach (NG, 2013). 1. Single-station approach a) Less accurate than a network approach b) One sensor detects the appearance of the quicker but fragile P-wave and warns of impending arrival of sluggish, more damaging S-wave. c) Is more likely to report false reports than the network approach d) Networks are not monitored daily e) Cannot monitor the development of large earthquakes 2) Network approach (NG, 2013): a) More accurate than a single-station approach, however somewhat more sluggish b) Employs multiple sensors to detect the appearance throughout widespread regions, then analyzes the data where earthquakes are identified, and cautions are issued via multi-media. c) Networks are monitored daily, especially for smaller ground vibrations d) Capable of detecting and characterizing large quakes as they are developing 3. Nations First Regional Earthquake Warning System (Seismic Warning Systems, Inc., 2004): On April 25, 2014, “A public private partnership with Imperial County and Seismic Warning Systems) was launched today with state senator Ben Hueso presenting Imperial County a FEMA/state OES grant award.” What makes this system so unique is that based on patented sensing technology, QuakeGuard detects the P-waves (Primary) which are the non-destructive earthquake prior to the more destructive S-waves (or Shearing) and R-waves (or Rayleigh). The QuakeGuard® minimizes property, protects equipment, and prevents human injury and loss of life (Seismic Warning Systems, Inc., 2004).
When disasters strike, communities look towards local and state officials for assistance during this time of need. In some instances, assistance from state and/or federal agencies is required to assist with the increased number of patients/fatalities, and other resources in which the local levels are unable to provide for that particular emergency situation.
On August 17, 1999 the largest Turkish earthquake recorded to date, the Golcuk-Kocaeli, with a 7.8 magnitude ruptured the infamous Northern Anatolian fault (Kestler-D'Amours, 1999). This massive quake devastated the lives of over 100,000 Turks leaving them homeless, killing over 18,000 others, and damaging more than 75,000 homes, businesses and other structures while lasting a mere 45 seconds (Akman, N & Ural, D, 2001). The photo below resembles that of a war-torn town rather than one that was devastated by an earthquake for such a fraction of a minute (Özdemir, 2000). 1999: Golcuk-Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake (Kestler-D'Amours, 1999)
One of the primary issues surrounding the rescue efforts in Turkey is the Emergency Management System (EMS), essentially prior to this massive quake one did not exist. Unfortunately, an efficiently established Emergency Operations Center (EOC) did not exist either. Establishing a proficiently operational EMS together with an adequately staffed EOC is imperative for a country such as Turkey, in that it’s extremely vulnerable due to its location to the two active faults lines, The Eurasia and The African/Arabian.
As of today, July 25, 2012, there has been new revelations regarding these fault lines and what was once thought to be another 148 fault lines in and around the country of Turkey (UNISDR, 2014). There is now evidence that there exists more than 326 lines including the Eurasian and the African/Arabian fault lines according to a six-year study between the years 2004 to 2011 (UNISDR, 2014). The findings and discuss the need for improving the current or lack of current EMS and EOC. The photograph below shows the updated findings depicted on the lower map.

(UNISDR, 2014)

In order to effectively create a proficiently staffed EMS and a successful EOC, the following steps must be in set in motion: I. A clear understanding of the purpose and goals of the EMS. A. Purpose (FEMA, 2010):
Standards which afford local jurisdictions the ability to evaluate and assess their competence to “mitigate against, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies or disasters (FEMA, 2010).”
B. Goals of an EMS (FEMA, 2010): 1. Save lives 2. Care for casualties 3. Limit further casualties 4. Limit further damage to structures and environment 5. Reassure and care for the public 6. Restore area to normal as soon as possible. C. Phases of EMS and disaster management (FEMA, 2010): 1. Mitigation 2. Preparedness 3. Response 4. Recovery II. A clear understanding of the purpose and functions of the EOC. A. Purpose (FEMA, 2010): The EOC is a location where key decision makers gather information about the disaster, assess policy options regarding the event, facilitate field operations for emergency service and other disaster personnel, and manage the entire response to the disaster (FEMA, 2010). These facilities are found at the Local Government level, can also be found at School Districts, Operational Areas, Regional level , and State levels. A. Functions (FEMA, 2010): 1. Information collection and evaluation. 2. Coordination. 3. Priority setting. 4. Resource coordination. 5. Communications facilitation. B. Benefits of an EOC (FEMA, 2010): 1. Establishes a common operating setting 2. Facilitate long-term operations 3. Improve stability 4. Provides ready access to all information which is currently available 5. Makes simplification for verifying and analyzing information 6. Promotes identification and assignment resources 7. Collectively with the ICS, contributions with gathering their critical operational needs. III. An understanding of how the EMS and the EOC correlate with the Incident Command System (ICS). A. An EMS routinely has five distinct levels of response (FEMA, 2010): 1. Field Response Level 2. Local Government 3. Operational Area 4. Regional 5. State B. An EMS has five principal roles which are predominantly derivatives of the ICS. These should be unchanging within all levels in the EMS and should be utilized during the field and throughout the EOC. Their functions include (FEMA, 2010): 1. Management (EOC), Command (field) 2. Operations 3. Planning/Intelligence 4. Logistics 5. Finance/Administration The efficacy of the EOC throughout an emergency will to a large extent be determined by what method the progression of management is completed (FEMA, 2010). There are numerous steps involved in the EOC management process, which may create an effective and efficient EOC operation and they include (FEMA, 2010): a. Planning d. Coordinating b. Organizing e. Communicating c. Evaluating f. Improving Unfortunately for the 18,000 Turkish civilians who perished in the 1999 Golcuk-Kocaeli earthquake, this EOC plan comes a few years too late. My hope is that for the very near future that even if one life can be spared, then it was well worth designing the new EOC for my family members back where I once called home and left back in 1971. However, as the Prime minister stated in his recent broadcast when revealing the following devastating news, “According to the map (shown on page 3 of this report), there are 485 segments on Turkey’s main land which can produce earthquakes with magnitudes of 5.5 or above,” the minister said. Bridges, railways and pipelines should not be built on live fault lines, he said. “Therefore there is a protection zone on live fault lines and where any strategic building, dam or pond cannot be constructed. (UNISDR, 2014).”
Although earthquakes are not predictable, the damage from earthquakes is preventable when cautionary steps are taken prior to their arrival (Kuterdem, 2010). This would include storing breakable items such as glassware and chinaware securely away in closets, securing shelves fixtures, and repairing defective wiring or gas connections. Securing the hot water heater will prevent it from unintentionally falling over possibly igniting the gas lines, and further causing fire and smoke damage (Kutluca A. , Hazard Risks of Izmir, 2004). By reinforcing frail or deteriorated foundations such as the walls or the chimney, this will prevent any type of horizontal movement of the home, which in turn would permit repetitive damage occurring as well. Creating an emergency kit and an emergency plan is the next step, followed by conducting earthquake drills including stressing to everyone: “Drop, cover and hold on.” Drop to the grass, pavement, carpet, etc. immediately, prepare to move as the earthquake moves; take Cover by getting underneath a solid table top or other piece of furniture (if no furniture is available, then cover the front if your face and head or sit in the corner of a building); and Hold On while anticipating for the rumbling/shaking to come to an end.
Once the shaking has subsided, it becomes extremely important to keep in mind that safety for yourself and your family is now the priority as debris will more than likely be all about you depending on the magnitude of the earthquake. The impact of an earthquake is seldom the cause of most related injuries inflicted upon individuals; often earthquakes will also trigger floods, tsunamis, avalanches, fires, and landslides (USDL and OSHA, 2005). Earthquake related injuries are the consequences of walls which have collapsed, flying glass, and/or objects which have fallen as a result of the ground shaking (Kutluca A. , Hazard Risks of Izmir, 2004). The likelihood of fractures, contusions, burns, abrasions and concussions will be slightly higher following earthquakes in areas which are more concentrated, than in area which are scattered.
Debris as a result of any earthquake can lead to potentially dangerous and even life threatening outcomes to communities and rescuers alike. While the potential for floods, tsunamis, avalanches, fires, and landslides devastate the municipalities there are frequent hazards created in the aftermath of these storms also. They can include any of the following categories: 1. Infectious waste: can cause infections to humans; causes include the following (Kutluca A. , Hazard Risks of Izmir, 2004): a. Contaminated waste from animals b. Blood products and human blood c. Pathological waste d. Discarded needles, and scalpels. Broken or used medical instruments. 2. Hazardous waste (HW): properties potentially harmful to humans or the environment. HW appears in one of the four waste lists or displays one or more characteristics (Kutluca A. , Hazard Risks of Izmir, 2004): e. Ignitability: the process of causing an object to burn or catch fire f. Corrosivity: the process of causing damage to metal through a chemical process g. Reactivity: the process of causing a response h. Toxicity: the process of poisoning or causing death 3. Chemically Contaminated Debris (Kutluca A. , Hazard Risks of Izmir, 2004): having substances or compounds contained within the debris 4. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) (Kutluca A. , Hazard Risks of Izmir, 2004): contaminated debris by chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear materials as a result of a natural or man-made disaster. An example would be weapons of mass destruction, or potentially anthrax similar to that which was placed in envelopes and then mailed out to congressional members.
When Los Angeles had their huge earthquake in Northridge in January 1994, there was approximately three million tons of debris removed from that city over nineteen -months later in July 1995. Successful removal of debris begins in the homeowner’s insurance policy, as some policies do include debris clean-up following natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, just to name a few. Should the home owner not have the additional policy, then they can look to their state or local government for assistance as well as FEMA. FEMA currently has a Public Assistance Debris Management Guide FEMA-325, which details step-by-step how individuals can request assistance with debris removal of every imaginable source from A to Z inclusive. According to the Turkish Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, in 2005 the environmental, seismic, geographical and climatic appearances collectively to deliver a setting for many types of disaster. “More than one million houses have been damaged by hazards in Turkey in the last 70 years: Approximately 78 percent resulted from earthquakes; 25 percent by floods; 17 percent by landslides; 12 percent via rock falls and 10 percent by meteorological events and snow avalanches (Özdemir, 2000).
The markets were as busy as any normal Monday morning in Izmir, Turkey, patrons were purchasing fresh loaves of bread as quickly as they were baked. The aroma was passing throughout the market square, while each vendor displayed their best selections of produce, nuts, meats, Turkish art, and jewelry and of course the infamous Shish Kabob. It was customary on Mondays to have a huge turnout for the market, but what was not routine was the sudden shaking that began throughout the market.
Without warning the ground started to shake, many of the locals didn’t seem too bothered at first, however as the shaking increased followed by structures crumbling around them, everyone in the market square knew that imminent trouble was quickly occurring.
Trouble indeed, because the minor shaking resulted into a 6.4 magnitude (Mw) earthquake killing more than 171, injuring over 530, collapsing or destroying well over 1,200 structures, displacing in excess of 1,250 Turkish residents from their homes (EERI, 2010). Since Turkey has so many older structures, many of them had been knocked down from their original foundations or completed reduced to rubble especially following the 20 or more aftershocks (Kutluca A. , Potential Natural Hazard Areas in Izmir Built-up Zone, a Case: Altındağ-Landslide Areas, 2004).
In Turkey, being that they are not as advanced as the U. S. and given that they are located on tectonic plates that crisscross in so many directions, many of the communities decide not to rebuild following major earthquakes. This is particularly true of the quakes with Mw larger than 6.4 and above. However following the Kocaeli earthquake (August 17, 1999 Mw 7.4), practically every structure vital city had been destroyed. The only structured which remained were those that were reinforced by braces and they showed signs of bowing and minor widening at the anchor bolts (Kutluca A. , Potential Natural Hazard Areas in Izmir Built-up Zone, a Case: Altındağ-Landslide Areas, 2004).
Immediately following this disaster, like so many others before them, communities turn to their leaders for assistance. Turkey does however have a few differences from the United States in terms of protocol and support following disasters (Özdemir, 2000). In the U.S. there currently exists various forms of federal disaster assistance programs or sources to include three major categories (FEMA, 2012): 1. Individual Assistance 2. Public Assistance 3. Hazard Mitigation
Individual Assistance could include any of the following categories as well: disaster housing, disaster grants, low-interest disaster loans, other disaster aid programs, and assistance process. With the disaster house assistance, any evacuated individual is permitted to request monetary funding for a period of less than 1 ½ years utilizing area sources to repair their items or home which were ruined and/or uninhabitable. Disaster grants are utilized for assisting individuals during severe catastrophic events and once insurance companies and other policies have made payments (FEMA, 2012). This type of grant can be utilized for personal property, funeral, and medical/dental expenditures. A low-interest disaster loan to be utilized by all individuals and distributed by the U. S. Small Business Administration (SBA) primarily for uninsured property loss. Loans are strictly utilized for repairing or replacing larger items such as homes, cars, damaged personal property and other household items (FEMA, 2012). Several other disaster aid programs are available which include one-on-one crisis counseling, group counseling, disaster-related counseling, as well as legal aid and tax return assistance all of which is available through an individual’s state and/or local businesses (FEMA, 2012). There are also assistance process in which an individual completes an application for damaged property, which is then inspected and once approved then assistance in the form of either rental assistance or a check is sent to that individual (FEMA, 2012).
Other programs include Public Assistance which can contribute to the public and specific private non-profit individuals for specified emergency amenities and the restoration or replacement of catastrophe damaged public amenities (FEMA, 2012).
Hazard Mitigation Assistance offers capital for methods considered to decrease future damages to community and private possessions (FEMA, 2012).
Once a catastrophe occurs, the Governor must then decide if his/her state falls into the grouping of a disaster. If he/she decides that it does, a request is sent to the President stating that an emergency or major catastrophe now exists in their state under the guidelines of the Stafford Act. During the time that the Governor awaits an answer an answer form the President/FEMA, the local, state and tribal government administrators should begin with response and recovery of the disaster (FEMA, 2012).
FEMA, having numerous programs accessible for all of the natural disasters, will respond soon to the disaster scene depending on the President’s decision. They will determine which program is initiated based their conclusions during damage evaluation and information that may be revealed (FEMA, 2012).
As of November 2011, the Turkish Emergency Disaster Management Division (AFAD) has finally made a drastic decision in terms of rebuilding following major disasters (Kuterdem, 2010). Prior to these changes, many residents were utilizing insufficient resources, unsuitable procedures of construction, lack of repairs to previously damaged and insufficient groundwork (HDN, 2014). They will now build away from the tectonic plates, instead of building on top of them! This comes shortly after a visit from the Center for Disaster Management and Risk Reduction Technology (CEDIM) Forensic Earthquake
Analysis Group who was also noted as harshly criticizing the relief agency for inadequately being prepared to handle the large amount of villagers during inclement weather, not having the proper amount of temporary housing (tents) nor having enough blankets (temperatures had dropped below 35 degrees for the night (U. Yazgan, 2011).
CEDIM had cautiously warned the AFAD that rebuilding would have to be done properly or the next earthquake there would be a higher risk for loss of life (Akman, N & Ural, D, 2001). Hopefully while some of the earthquake activity has slowed, Turkey will begin to rebuild in the coming months.
For right now at least, new changes have been implemented beginning from the highest position in the Planning and Mitigation Departments to include the following new departments of the Emergency Management Offices:
Originally the EM office operated by was three main positions: 1. Prime Ministry 2. Ministry of Interior and Turkish Emergency Management General Directorate 3. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, General Directorate of Civil Defense
Following the new transitions over the past two-and-a-half years there are still 3 main positions however under new classifications as follows: 1. Disaster and Emergency Management Higher Committee 2. Disaster and Emergency Management Co-ordination Committee, 3. Earthquake Advisory Board
The above Supervisory Positions then were given additional personnel as follows: 1. Earthquake Department 2. Recovery Department 3. Civil Defense Department 4. Response Department; and 5. Department of Administrative Affairs
The schematic below shows the updated breakdown of the Disaster Management Structure of Turkey.

(Kuterdem, 2010)

(Kuterdem, 2010)

References
Akman, N, & Ural, D. (2001). Creating Disaster Resistant Communities (in Turkish). Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul Technical University Center of Excellence for Disaster Management Book Series - ITU Press.
Disaster Data Collection and Assessment Group of Ministry of Public Work and Settlement General Directorate of Disaster Affairs. (2005). Disaster Report of Turkey “since 2005”. Ankara.
EERI. (2010, May). News of the Institute: Mw 6 Elazig, Turkey, EQ of March 8, 2010 . In M. Yashinsky (Ed.). 44, p. 8. EERI. Retrieved July 20, 2014, from Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI): https://www.eeri.org/site/images/eeri_newsletter/2010_pdf/May10.pdf
FEMA. (2010). Emergency Operating Centers Handbook - Series 1. Washington, D.C.
FEMA. (2012). Federal Disaster Assistance. Washington, D.C., USA: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Retrieved July 20, 2014, from http://www.hrsa.gov/emergency/buckets/fedasst.pdf.pdf
FEMA. (2014, January 29). Be Informed for disasters. Retrieved from Ready.gov: http://www.ready.gov/earthquakes
HDN. (2014, July 24). Fault lines crisscrossing Turkey. Retrieved July 25, 2014, from Hurriyet Daily News (HDN): Leading News Sourcw for Turkey and The Region: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/fault-lines-crisscrossing-turkey.aspx?pageID=238&nID=23606&NewsCatID=341
Index Mundi. com. (2013). Turkey Demographics Profile 2013. Retrieved June 2, 2014, from Index Mundi: http://www.indexmundi.com/turkey/demographics_profile.html
Kestler-D'Amours, J. (1999). Turkey braces for next major earthquake. MarMara, Kocaeli, Turkey. Retrieved July 3, 2014, from http://www.aljazeera.com/news /middleeast/2014/03/turkey-braces-next-major-earthquake-201431182932518813.html
Komuscu, A. (1995). Role of the Urbanization and Terrain features on the Izmir Flash Flood, November 3-4, 1995. Urban Settlemnets and Natural Disasters. Izmir, Turkey: UIA Chamber of Architects of Turkey.
Kuterdem, K. (2010, October 6). A New Disaster Management Structure In Turkey. Retrieved from Department, Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency Earthquake Department: http://www. preventionweb. net/files/15110_6kuterdemanewdisastermanagementstru.pdf
Kutluca, A. K. (2004). Hazard Risks of Izmir. (UIA, Ed.) Izmir, Turkey: International Union of Architects (UIA) Chamber, Section of UIA in Instanbul, Turkey
McClusky, S., et al. (2000). Global Positioning System constraints on plate kinematics and dynamics in the eastern Mediterranean and Caucasus. Journal of Geophysical Research:, 105(B3), 5695-5719. doi: 10.1029/1999JB900351
MEER - IEM. (2005). "Needs Assessment for Upgrading Emergency Response Capacity for the Izmir Metroplitan Region". Izmir: Izmir Governors Disaster Mangement Office.
NG. (2013, September 27). How Do Earthquake Early Warning Systems Work? (NG News) Retrieved August 4, 2014, from National Geographic (NG): http://news. nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130927-earthquake-early-warning-system-earth-science/
Özdemir, A. (2000). Emergency Management in Turkey. Izmir. Retrieved June 2, 2014, from http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/114715/istanbul03/ docs/istanbul03/13ozdemir3-n.pdf
Seismic Warning Systems, Inc. (2004, July 30). Seismic Warning Systems, Inc.: Corporate Background. (Seismic Warning Systems, Inc. , Editor) Retrieved August 10, 2014, from QuakeGuard: http://www.seismicwarning. com/about/ CorpBackground.pdf
Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR): http://www.unisdr.org/2001/campaign /pdf/Kit _2_The_Role_of_Science_and_Technology_in_Disaster_Reduction.pdf
UNISDR. (2014, July). The Role of Science and Technology in Disaster Reduction. (B. Rouhban, Editor) Retrieved July 6, 2014, from United Nations International
USDL and OSHA. (2005). Emergency Preparedness Guide: Earthquakes. Retrieved August 4, 2014, from U.S. Department of Labor and Occupational Safety & Health Administration (USDL & OSHA): Sfaety and Health Guides: https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/emergencypreparedness/guides/earthquakes.html
U. Yazgan, B. T. (2011, October 23). October 23rd, 2011 Van Earthquake: Preliminary Reconnaissance Report: Structural and Geotechnical Aspects of the Damage. Retrieved from Istanbul Technical University, Turkey: http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/WCEE2012_4174.pdf