Quantitative seismic risk assessment reveals varying risk levels across eight provinces, indicating necessary safety measures.
This study provides a quantitative seismic hazard and risk assessment for eight provinces in Türkiye’s Aegean Region by adapting the Fine–Kinney method to geological conditions. The method, commonly used in industrial safety, was modified by redefining probability (P), frequency (F), and severity (S) to reflect tectonic setting, historical seismicity, and structural vulnerability. Probability was based on each province’s shortest distance to active faults, frequency on the number of Mw ≥ 4.5 earthquakes over the past 35 years, and severity on total building stock. The model was applied to Izmir, Manisa, Aydin, Mugla, Denizli, Usak, Kutahya, and Afyonkarahisar. Izmir and Manisa were classified as “very high risk” (R = 2000), Denizli and Mugla as “high risk” (R = 300), Afyonkarahisar and Aydin as “significant risk,” Kutahya as “definite risk,” and Usak as “acceptable risk.” Seismic hazard is generally high, with risk distribution shaped by fault proximity and building density. The adapted method offers a practical framework for comparing provincial seismic risk and supports evidence-based decisions in disaster management, geoconservation, land-use planning, and earthquake-sensitive architectural and interior design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Betül İrem Tarakçı (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: