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
sedtavci@istanbul.edu.tr
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
(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
Figure 1: Geographical region of Turkey. A-Marmara Region (A1-Istranca Part, A2-Ergene Part, A3-Çatalca-Kocaeli
Part, A4-South Marmara Part), B-Aegean Region (B1-Main Aegean Part, B2-Inner West Anatolia Part), C- Mediterranean
Region (C1-Antalya Part, C2-Adana Part), D-Central Anatolia Region (D1-Konya Part, D2-Upper Sakarya Part, D3-Middle
Kızılırmak Part, D4-Upper Kızılırmak Part), E-Black Sea Region (E1-West Black Sea Part, E2-Middle Black Sea Part, E3-East
Black Sea Part), F-Eastern Anatolia Region (F1-Erzurum-Kars Part, F2-Upper Fırat Part, F3-Upper Murat-Van Part, F4-Hakkâri
IX
Part), and G-Sourteast Anatolia Region (G1-Middle Fırat Part, G2-Dicle Part).
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
Figure 2: Development of Turkey population (1927–2000)

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

Figure 4: Rural and urban population (1927–2000).
7
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
Figure 5: Erzurum. The biggest city in Eastern Anatolia Region. An important city cases of economy,
social, and administration.
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
Table 2: Development of urban population in Turkey (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 P P0 .ern used 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 P log Po)
r
(n. log e)
which was obtained from this formula was used and to find the probable future
population, the mathematical derivate of this formula
log P log P0 rn. log
was used, where P= second census (or assumed population), P 0=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
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
16
Table 3: City numbers and populations of population sizes (1927-2000).

Figure 7: Ġstanbul. A metropolitan which is the biggest in Turkey and very important for world.
17
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.
Figure 8: Kastamonu. An example of a medium-sized city in the inner parts of Black Sea Region.
19
20
Figure 9: TaĢkent. A small-sized city in Mediterranean Region, between mountains. Only a centre for nearby
settlements.
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
Figure 10: Distribution of urban population in Turkey (1927).

23
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
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
28

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

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
Figure 23: Active faults, earthquake zones and huge earthquakes in Turkey.
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
Figure 24: Urban population when earthquake zones are considered (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
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
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
Source: BĠLGĠN, ERER & GÖÇMEN, 1972.
1976
Çaldıran-
Muradiye
Date: May 12, 1971

Ms= 5,9
Dead: 57
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
62
Box 5: 1995 Dinar earthquakes, Aegean Region, West Turkey.
Date: October 01, 1995

Ms= 6,1
Dead: 90
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
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
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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two Papers of Urbanization in Turkey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two Papers About Urbanization

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sedat Avcı

Copyright © 2005 by Sedat Avcı

Ġstanbul University, Letters Faculty

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 11: Distribution of urban population in Turkey (1950). ................... 23

Figure 12: Distribution of urban population in Turkey (1970). ................... 25

Figure 13: Distribution of urban population in Turkey (1980). ................... 27

Figure 14: Distribution of urban population in Turkey (1990). ................... 28

Figure 15: Distribution of urban population in Turkey (2000). ................... 30

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

Figure 17: Generalized Palaeotectonic map of the early Jurassic

Figure 18: Generalized Palaeotectonic map of the middle Jurassic for

Figure 19: Generalized Palaeotectonic map of the late Cretaceous-

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

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

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

Figure 23: Active faults, earthquake zones and huge earthquakes

Figure 24: Urban population when earthquake zones are considered

Figure 25: Urban population when earthquake zones are considered

Figure 26: Urban population when earthquake zones are considered

Figure 27: Urban population when earthquake zones are considered

Figure 28: Urban population when earthquake zones are considered

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

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

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

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

To show the geographical regions and districts that were

Dr. Sedat Avcı

Population of Turkey (1927–2000)

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

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

Population Policies of Turkey and Urbanization

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

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

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

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

For the purpose of revealing the dimensions of urbanization in

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

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

relatively positive socio-economic environment provided by the

Development of the Cities as to Their Population Sizes

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

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

Distribution of Urban Population in Turkey

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

In 1980 General Population Census, there were 322 settlements