Debris Management in Turkey Provinces Affected by the 6 February 2023 Earthquakes: Challenges during Recovery and Potential Health and Environmental Risks
Source abstract
Abstract
On 6 February 2023, southeastern Turkey was struck by two major earthquakes that devastated 11 provinces. Tens of thousands of buildings collapsed and more were later demolished. During post-event field surveys conducted by the authors, several disposal sites set up in the most affected provinces were detected and checked for suitability. Based on field observations on the properties of sites and their surrounding areas as well as on the implemented debris management activities, it is concluded that all sites had characteristics that did not allow them to be classified as safe for earthquake debris management. This inadequacy is mainly attributed to their proximity to areas, where thousands of people reside. As regards the environmental impact, these sites were operating within or close to surface water bodies. This situation reveals a rush for rapid recovery resulting in serious errors in the preparation and implementation of disaster management plans. In this context, measures for effective debris management are proposed based on the existing scientific knowledge and operational experience. This paper aims to highlight challenges during earthquakes debris management and related threats posed to public health and the environment in order to be avoided in future destructive events.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Earthquake Detection and Analysis · Disaster Response and Management · earthquake and tectonic studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Dynamic Tectonic Applied Geology, Faculty of Geology and Geoenvironment, School of Sciences, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15784 Athens, Greece
Department of Microbiology, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece
Department of Geography and Climatology, Faculty of Geology and Geoenvironment, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15784 Athens, Greece
European Academy of Sciences and Arts, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria
Earthquake Planning and Protection Organization, 15451 Athens, Greece
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Disaster waste management: A review article10.1016/j.wasman.2011.01.027 ↗
2. Beer, M., Kougioumtzoglou, I., Patelli, E., and Au, I.K. (2014). Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4 ↗
3. Ghosh, S.K. (2017). Sustainable Waste Management: Policies and Case Studies, Springer Nature Singapore Private Limited.
4. Investigation on building waste and reclaim in Wenchuan earthquake disaster area10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.01.012 ↗
5. Baycan, F. (2004, January 22–23). Emergency planning for disaster waste: A proposal based on the experience of the Marmara earthquake in Turkey. Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference and Student Competition on Post-Disaster Reconstruction: Planning for Reconstruction, Coventry, UK.
6. Johnston, D., Dolan, L., Saunders, W., van Schalkwyk, R., Killeen, C., Cousins, J., Glavovic, B., Brown, C., and McIntyre, I. (2023, April 15). Disposal of Debris Following Urban Earthquakes: Guiding the Development of Comprehensive Pre-Event Plans, Available online: https://www.eqc.govt.nz/assets/Publications-Resources/2335-Disposal-of-debris-following-urban-earthquakes.pdf.
7. Occurrence of organic pollutants in recovered soil fines from construction and demolition waste10.1016/S0956-053X(01)00007-1 ↗
8. Sulfate leaching from recovered construction and demolition debris fines10.1016/S1093-0191(00)00056-3 ↗
9. United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2023, April 15). M 7.8—Pazarcik Earthquake, Kahramanmaras Earthquake Sequence, Available online: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000jllz/executive.
10. United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2023, April 15). M 7.5—Elbistan Earthquake, Kahramanmaras Earthquake Sequence, Available online: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000jlqa/executive.
11. The Destructive Earthquake Doublet of 6 February 2023 in South-Central Türkiye and Northwestern Syria: Initial Observations and Analyses10.1785/0320230007 ↗
12. The 6 February 2023 Turkey-Syria Earthquakes
13. Taftsoglou, M., Valkaniotis, S., Karantanellis, E., Goula, E., and Papathanassiou, G. (2023, April 25). Preliminary Mapping of Liquefaction Phenomena Triggered by the February 6 2023 M7.7 Earthquake, Türkiye/Syria, Based on Remote Sensing Data. Available online: https://zenodo.org/record/7668401.
14. Çetin, K.Ö., Ilgaç, M., Can, G., and Çakır, E. (2023, April 25). Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on February 6, 2023, Pazarcık Mw = 7.7 and Elbistan Mw = 7.6, Kahramanmaraş-Türkiye Earthquakes. Middle East Technical University, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No: METU/EERC 2023-01, Ankara, Turkey. Available online: https://eerc.metu.edu.tr/en/system/files/documents/DMAM_Report_2023_Kahramanmaras-Pazarcik_and_Elbistan_Earthquakes_Report_final_ENG.pdf.
15. Türkiye Recovery and Reconstruction Assessment (TERRA) (2023, April 20). Türkiye Earthquakes Recovery and Reconstruction Assessment. Report with the Support of the United Nations and the European Union, with Select Inputs from World Bank Staff, Available online: https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Turkiye-Recovery-and-Reconstruction-Assessment.pdf.
16. Ministry of Climate Change and Civil Protection (2023, April 15). Press Release on 12 February 2023, Available online: https://civilprotection.gov.gr/deltia-tupou/epestrepse-i-elliniki-apostoli-ereynas-kai-diasosis-apo-tin-toyrkia-ta-meli-tis.
17. Drone technology in municipal solid waste management and landfilling: A comprehensive review10.1016/j.wasman.2021.12.006 ↗
18. Frazier, A.E., and Hemingway, B.L. (2021). A Technical Review of Planet Smallsat Data: Practical Considerations for Processing and Using PlanetScope Imagery. Remote Sens., 13.10.3390/rs13193930 ↗
19. Olthof, I., and Svacina, N. (2020). Testing Urban Flood Mapping Approaches from Satellite and In-Situ Data Collected during 2017 and 2019 Events in Eastern Canada. Remote Sens., 12.10.3390/rs12193141 ↗
20. Obtaining high-resolution synthetic soil imagery for topsoil mapping10.1080/2150704X.2021.1999524 ↗
21. Lefulebe, B.E., Van der Walt, A., and Xulu, S. (2022). Fine-Scale Classification of Urban Land Use and Land Cover with PlanetScope Im-agery and Machine Learning Strategies in the City of Cape Town, South Africa. Sustainability, 14.10.3390/su14159139 ↗
22. Kalafat, D., Güneş, Y., Kara, M., Deniz, P., Kekovali, K., Kuleli, H.S., Gülen, L., Yilmazer, M., and Özel, N.M. (2007). A Revised and Extended Earthquake Catalogue for Turkey since 1900 (M ≥ 4.0), Boğaziçi University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute.
23. The North Anatolian Fault: A New Look10.1146/annurev.earth.32.101802.120415 ↗
24. The East Anatolian Fault: Geometry, segmentation and jog characteristics10.1144/SP372.14 ↗
25. The January 24, 2020 Mw 6.8 Elazig (Turkey) Earthquake
26. The 24 January 2020 (Mw 6.8) Sivrice (Elazig, Turkey) earthquake: A first look at spatiotemporal distribution and triggering of aftershocks10.1007/s12517-021-08756-y ↗
27. First Results on the Mw = 6.9 Samos Earthquake of 30 October 202010.12681/bgsg.25359 ↗
28. Çetin, K.Ö., Mylonakis, G., Sextos, A., and Stewart, J.P. (2021). Seismological and Engineering Effects of the M 7.0 Samos Island (Aegean Sea) Earthquake, Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association. Report GEER-069.10.1007/s10518-021-01212-y ↗
29. Mavroulis, S., Triantafyllou, I., Karavias, A., Gogou, M., Katsetsiadou, K.-N., Lekkas, E., Papadopoulos, G.A., and Parcharidis, I. (2021). Primary and Secondary Environmental Effects Triggered by the 30 October 2020, Mw = 7.0, Samos (Eastern Aegean Sea, Greece) Earthquake Based on Post-Event Field Surveys and InSAR Analysis. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11073281 ↗
30. Triantafyllou, I., Gogou, M., Mavroulis, S., Lekkas, E., Papadopoulos, G.A., and Thravalos, M. (2021). The Tsunami Caused by the 30 October 2020 Samos (Aegean Sea) Mw7.0 Earthquake: Hydrodynamic Features, Source Properties and Impact Assessment from Post-Event Field Survey and Video Records. J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 9.10.3390/jmse9010068 ↗
31. Seismic damage assessment based on site observation following the Düzce (Gölyaka) earthquake (Mw = 5.9, November 23, 2022)
32. Parameters of intensity distribution in the Izmit and Dazce (Turkey) earthquakes10.12681/bgsg.17257 ↗
33. The 1999 eartquake activity in Izmit, NW Turkey. An opportunity for the study of actualistic strike-slip related tectonic forms10.12681/bgsg.17258 ↗
34. Strike-slip fault geometry in Turkey and its influence on earthquake activity10.1029/TC007i003p00663 ↗
35. Source parameters of large earthquakes in the East Anatolian Fault Zone (Turkey)10.1111/j.1365-246X.1991.tb06328.x ↗
36. The East Anatolian Fault Zone of Turkey
37. Ambraseys, N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East, a Multidisciplinary Study of Seismicity up to 1900, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139195430 ↗
38. Source mechanism and rupture process of the 24 January 2020 Mw 6.7 Doğanyol-Sivrice earthquake obtained from seismological waveform analysis and space geodetic observations on the East Anatolian Fault Zone (Turkey)10.1016/j.tecto.2021.228745 ↗
39. Lekkas, E., and Vassilakis, E. (February, January 30). The Adana Earthquake (Turkey)—Seismotectonic Framework, Geodynamic Phenomena, Impact on the Structured Environment. Proceedings of the 12th World Congress of Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand. Paper No. 0480.
40. Lozios, S., Lekkas, E., and Danamos, G. (2004, January 1–6). The Bingöl, Eastern Turkey, Earthquake. Co-Seismic Phenomena and Damage Distribution. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Paper No. 3010.
41. Aftershock study and seismotectonic implications of the 8 March 2010 Kovancılar (Elazığ, Turkey) earthquake (MW= 6.1)
42. The October 23 (Mw = 7.2) and November 9 (Mw = 5.7), 2011 Van, Turkey earthquakes. A geoscientific and engineering report
43. Sub- and super-shear ruptures during the 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 earthquake doublet in SE Türkiye10.26443/seismica.v2i3.387 ↗
44. European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre (EMSC) (2023, April 03). M 7.8—CENTRAL TURKEY—2023-02-06 01:17:36 UTC. Available online: https://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/earthquake.php?id=1218444#summary.
45. Görüm, T., and Tanyaş, H. (2023, January 24–28). Less than expected? Landslides triggered by the 2023 Mw 7.7 and 7.6 Kahramanmaras (Türkiye) earthquake sequence. Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly 2023, EGU23-17606, Vienna, Austria.10.5194/egusphere-egu23-17606 ↗
46. Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery and World Bank Group (2023, April 20). Global Rapid Post-Disaster Damage Estimation (GRADE) Report. Available online: http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099022723021250141/pdf/P1788430aeb62f08009b2302bd4074030fb.pdf.
47. Seismic failure modes of masonry structures exposed to Kahramanmaraş earthquakes (Mw 7.7 and 7.6) on February 6, 202310.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107422 ↗
48. Structural damages in masonry buildings in Adıyaman during the Kahramanmaraş (Turkiye) earthquakes (Mw 7.7 and Mw 7.6) on 06 February 202310.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107405 ↗
49. Grünthal, G. (1998). European Macroseismic Scale 1998 EMS-98, Conseil de l’Europe, Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie.
50. Qu, Z., Wang, F., Chen, X., Wang, X., and Zhou, Z. (2023). Rapid report of seismic damage to hospitals in the 2023 Turkey earthquake sequences. Earthq. Res. Adv., 100234.10.1016/j.eqrea.2023.100234 ↗
51. The effect of the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes (Mw 7.7 and Mw 7.6) on historical masonry mosques and minarets10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107225 ↗
52. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2023, April 10). Millions of Tons of Earthquake Rubble Await Removal in Türkiye. Available online: https://www.undp.org/turkiye/press-releases/millions-tons-earthquake-rubble-await-removal-turkiye.
53. Where are demolition wastes going: Reflection and analysis of the February 6, 2023 earthquake disaster in Turkey10.1007/s44242-023-00017-3 ↗
54. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) (2023, April 15). EM-DAT—The International Disaster Database. Available online: https://public.emdat.be/.
55. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1995) (2023, March 12). Planning for Disaster Debris, Available online: https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/inforesources/web/pdf/dstr-pdf.pdf.
56. Hirayama, N., Kawata, Y., Suzuki, S., and Harada, K. (2009, January 5–9). Estimation procedure for potential quantity of tsunami debris on tsunami earthquake disasters. Proceedings of the Sardinia 2009 12th International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy.10.1007/s11157-010-9190-y ↗
57. Disaster waste management after the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake: A mini-review of earthquake waste management and the Kumamoto experience10.1177/0734242X18815948 ↗
58. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) (2023, April 25). Disaster Waste Management Guidelines (Vol. January 2011). Available online: https://www.unocha.org/sites/unocha/files/DWMG.pdf.
59. Di Coma, C. (2010). Procedure e Strumenti per la Gestione delle Macerie da Crolli e Demolizioni e da Interventi di Ristrutturazione Immobiliare.
60. Disaster waste management in Italy: Analysis of recent case studies10.1016/j.wasman.2017.10.012 ↗
61. Construction and Demolition Debris Management for Sustainable Reconstruction after Disasters: Italian Case Studies
62. Booth, W. (2023, April 10). Haiti Faces Colossal and Costly Cleanup Before it can Rebuild, The Washington Post. Available online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/06/AR2010030602544.html?hpid=artslot.
63. United Nations Environment Programme (2012) (2023, April 25). Managing Post-Disaster Debris: The Japan Experience. Report of the International Expert Mission to Japan. 56p. Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8136/-Managing%20post-disaster%20debris_%20%20the%20Japan%20experience-20121122.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y.
64. Brown, C. (2012). Disaster Waste Management: A Systems Approach. [Ph.D. Thesis, University of Canterbury].
65. Cooper, R.C., and Murchio, J.C. (1974). Preliminary Studies of Asbestiform Fibres in Domestic Water Supplies, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
66. Kramer, J., Mudroch, O., and Tihor, S. (1974). Asbestos in the Environment, Research Advisory Board, International Joint Commission and Environment.
67. Analysis of amphibole asbestiform fibres in municipal water supplies
68. World Health Organization (WHO) (2023, April 15). Asbestos and Other Natural Mineral Fibres. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/37190/9241541938-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
69. Environmental risks due to debris containing asbestos in post-earthquake conditions10.1556/AGeod.45.2010.3.4 ↗
70. Significantly high incidence and high morbidity of acute renal failure with respiratory tract involvement of p-ANCA-related angitis revealed in Kobe city and the environs after the Kobe earthquake in 1995
71. Chronic Health Effects of Inhalation of Dust or Sludge
72. Predictors of lung cancer among former asbestos-exposed workers10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.06.013 ↗
73. Awuchi, C.G., Ondari, E.N., Nwozo, S., Odongo, G.A., Eseoghene, I.J., Twinomuhwezi, H., Ogbonna, C.U., Upadhyay, A.K., Adeleye, A.O., and Okpala, C.O.R. (2022). Mycotoxins’ Toxicological Mechanisms Involving Humans, Livestock and Their Associated Health Concerns: A Review. Toxins, 14.10.3390/toxins14030167 ↗
74. Cooper, P.A. (1994). Environmental Considerations in the Manufacture, Use and Disposal of Preservative-Treated Wood, Forest Products Society.
75. Lebow, S.T., Lebow, P.K., Foster, D.O., and Brooks, K.M. (2000). Environmental Impact of Preservative-Treated Wood in a Wetland Boardwalk, Research paper FPL, RP-582.
76. Leaching of chromated copper arsenate wood preservatives: A review10.1016/S0269-7491(00)00030-0 ↗
77. Impact of chromated copper arsenate (CCA) in wood mulch10.1016/S0048-9697(03)00047-0 ↗
78. Leaching of CCA-treated wood: Implications for waste disposal10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.06.025 ↗
79. Evaluation of XRF and LIBS technologies for on-line sorting of CCA-treated wood waste10.1016/j.wasman.2003.09.006 ↗
80. Characteristics of chromated copper arsenate-treated wood ash10.1016/S0304-3894(01)00311-9 ↗
81. Control of heavy metal emissions and leaching from incineration of CCA-treated wood using mineral sorbents10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2004)130:2(184) ↗
82. Ravenscroft, P., Brammer, H., and Richards, K.S. (2009). Arsenic Pollution: A Global Synthesis, Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444308785 ↗
83. Gomez-Caminero, A., Howe, P.D., Hughes, M., Kenyon, E., Lewis, D.R., Moore, M., Aitio, A., Becking, G.C., and Ng, J. (2001). Arsenic and Arsenic Compounds, World Health Organization. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42366.
84. Pulmonary retention of lead: An experimental study in man10.1016/0013-9351(80)90040-7 ↗
85. Induction of Gene Amplification by Arsenic10.1126/science.3388020 ↗
86. Acute promyelocytic leukemia: PML/RARα and the leukemic stem cell10.1038/sj.leu.2403367 ↗
87. Mechanisms underlying arsenic carcinogenesis: Hypersensitivity of mice exposed to inorganic arsenic during gestation10.1016/j.tox.2004.01.017 ↗
88. Chromated Copper Arsenate
89. Chronic Hexavalent Chromium Exposure Induces Cancer Stem Cell-Like Property and Tumorigenesis by Increasing c-Myc Expression10.1093/toxsci/kfz196 ↗
90. Mavrouli, M., Mavroulis, S., Lekkas, E., and Tsakris, A. (2023). The Impact of Earthquakes on Public Health: A Narrative Review of Infectious Diseases in the Post-Disaster Period Aiming to Disaster Risk Reduction. Microorganisms, 11.10.3390/microorganisms11020419 ↗
91. Impact of Earthquake Demolition Debris on the Quality of Groundwater10.3844/ajassp.2010.545.550 ↗
92. Air Pollution by Concrete Dust from the Great Hanshin Earthquake10.2134/jeq2002.7180 ↗
93. Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Nesting and Habitat Threats at Samandağ Beach, Turkey10.2744/1071-8443(2006)5[302:GTCMNA]2.0.CO;2 ↗
94. Wind Energy Plants and Possible Effects on Samandağ Sea Turtles
95. Seleucia Pieria: An ancient harbour submitted to two successive uplifts10.1111/j.1095-9270.1992.tb00379.x ↗
96. Sustainable land use of coastal areas. Case study of Samandag coastal zone
97. Wind Energy Potential for Electricity Production in Hatay, Turkey10.1051/e3sconf/202020702014 ↗
98. The geology and morphology of the Antakya Graben between the Amik Triple Junction and the Cyprus Arc10.1080/09853111.2013.858962 ↗
99. Recycling disaster waste: Feasibility, method and effectiveness10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.021 ↗
100. Integrated Remediation Processes Toward Heavy Metal Removal/Recovery from Various Environments—A Review10.3389/fenvs.2019.00066 ↗