At The Fault Lines

On February 6, 2023, two consecutive earthquakes with magnitudes of 7.8 and 7.7 struck southern Turkey and northern Syria, resulting in the deaths of more than 60,000 people. Now named as the Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes, largest since the 1939 Erzincan Earthquake of the same magnitude, is the second most powerful ever recorded in the region. Affecting 14 million people and leaving 1.5 million homeless across 11 provinces, it is now recognized as the deadliest natural disaster in the history of Turkey.

The earthquake region, encompassing the 11 southeastern provinces of Kahramanmaraş, Hatay, Osmaniye, Adıyaman, Gaziantep, Şanlıurfa, Diyarbakır, Malatya, Kilis, Adana, and Elazığ, totals up to over 110,000 square kilometers (42,000 square miles) - nearly the same size as the neighboring Bulgaria. This is equivalent to stretching from Washington, D.C. to Boston, MA, encompassing the entire northeastern metropolitan region of the United States.

In Hatay province, the historic center of Antakya is now nearly uninhabitable. The city, which has stood for millennia, has been flattened, leaving it almost unrecognizable. The extent of the destruction has driven nearly all residents away, transforming familiar streets and landmarks into a stark, altered landscape. In Kahramanmaraş, the historic district has been decimated, leaving once-vibrant neighborhoods in ruins. Similarly, Gaziantep, known for its rich history and architectural heritage, has seen extensive damage to its old city center, including the Gaziantep Castle—originally built by the Hittite Empire and later expanded by the Romans—and its traditional markets. Despite more than a year of reconstruction efforts, most of these cities remain unrecognizable to more than 500,000 people who once called them home.

Yet, Turkey is no stranger to such catastrophic earthquakes, as the country geographically sits on top two major fault zones - the North Anatolian fault zone being one of the most seismically active in the World. 20 years ago when a similarly destructive earthquake struck near Istanbul, the country’s economic and population center, it was a wake up call for the country: The government changed shortly after being deemed “incompetent,” much stricter building codes and regulations were put in place, nation-wide first response organizations were founded, and a new “earthquake tax” was introduced to help fund urban renewal and recovery efforts. The recent earthquakes exposed that many of these efforts have been immensely inadequate, mostly due to large-scale corrupt political, regulatory, and construction practices throughout the 20-year AKP rule. Moreover, the country’s most prominent scientists have been incessantly alarming against a long-awaited “Istanbul Earthquake” to strike in the next decade, with consequences exponentially graver.

This study aims to dissect these corrupt practices, identify their traces in the architectural level across an urban scale, and develop an alternative risk assessment mapping method that may offer critical insight for local authorities, municipalities, as well as individuals. Recent developments in interctive mapping techniques, artificial intelligence and machine learning have allowed large urban-scale risk assessment models to be implemented in order to detect possible structural defects before any failure or collapse. In this article, we will explain the structural malpractices that led to such destruction in the area, and will propose an automated, faster, and more scalable alternative “risk assessment method” that could be used to create an earthquake risk map of the bustling metropolis of Istanbul that is home to 16 million people.

In order to better understand this, we first need to zoom out and understand the country’s geological, social, and political relationship with the earthquakes — starting with the East Anatolian Fault, which is where the Feb 6 earthquakes happened.

The North Anatolian Fault (NAF) is a major strike-slip fault zone stretching approximately 1,500 kilometers (900 miles) across northern Turkey, from the junction with the East Anatolian Fault in eastern Turkey to the northern Aegean Sea.

Since the mid-20th century, seismologists have understood that earthquakes along the NAF move in a westward progression, with each quake triggering the next. This phenomenon became evident following the 1939 Erzincan earthquake, which resulted in over 32,000 fatalities and more than 100,000 injuries.

Research indicates that nine out of ten major earthquakes along the NAF between 1939 and 1992 were brought closer to failure by the preceding shocks due to the transfer of stress along the fault line. This progressive failure mechanism suggests that each large earthquake can set up the next one by altering the stress distribution along the fault.

By studying the sequence of past earthquakes, seismologists can identify patterns and potential stress points, enabling them to predict future earthquakes. The most recent major earthquake along the NAF, the 1999 Izmit earthquake, which killed over 17,000 people, has led the scientific community to anticipate the next major earthquake hitting Istanbul.

Due to Istanbul’s proximity to the NAF, the warning time for a major earthquake could be as short as 2-6 seconds, making a rapid response challenging. Combined with its dense population of 20 million and inconsistent infrastructure quality, the city could face an unprecedented level of destruction.

The most recent major tectonic event along the North Anatolian Fault, the 1999 Izmit-Gölcük Earthquake, struck on August 17 at 3:01 AM local time. With a magnitude of 7.6 and an epicenter just 90 kilometers east of Istanbul, this 37-second tremor claimed over 17,000 lives and displaced 500,000 people. As Turkey’s most destructive earthquake until February 6, it exposed critical vulnerabilities in the country’s disaster preparedness, many of which were due to rampant corruption in the construction industry.

The incumbent government’s organizational failure and inability to respond and provide help to the area, combined with a long-standing financial crisis, has left the public with a bitter sentiment that “the state has left them on their own.” As a result, the government received less than 10% of the vote in the 2002 elections.

The Justice and Development Party (AKP), which still is the ruling party in the country, rose to power in the elections with Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, back then the very popular and highly-acclaimed Mayor of Istanbul, promising drastic changes. The newly appointed government codified what was initially planned to be a short-term recovery act, the infamous “Earthquake Tax,” making it permanent. It also launched the country’s first nationwide disaster response organization, AFAD, fore-fronted much stricter construction regulations and building codes, and introduced massive-scale urban renewal programs.

Since 2002, the AKP has been able to consolidate its base largely due to initiatives that many believed had transformed Turkey from a run-down, old country to modern standards, with new highways, residences, and other infrastructure improvements. However, the February 6 earthquakes have led to widespread disillusionment. The devastation revealed that many of the government’s commitments were not fulfilled, exposing significant inadequacies and corruption in regulatory enforcement, infrastructural reconstruction and disaster preparedness efforts.

This, along with the westward pattern of the seismic activity along the North Anatolian Fault suggesting an increased possibility of a tectonic event taking place around Istanbul, directly to the west of the most-recent quake zone Izmit, has left a city of 20 million worried about the safety of their homes and workplaces.

The devastating earthquake in February of 2023 has heightened anxiety among Istanbul’s residents about the inevitable "Büyük Istanbul Depremi" (The Next Great Istanbul Earthquake).

Given the Istanbul’s proximity to the North Anatolian Fault, the warning time for such an event could be as short as 2-6 seconds, making rapid emergency response extremely challenging. Combined with its dense population of 20 million and widespread structural vulnerabilities, the city is at risk of unprecedented destruction.

With 3,049 people per square kilometer, Istanbul is one of the densest urban areas in the world, and the most densely packed neighborhoods also tend to be the most prone to earthquake damage. According to Mehmet Özhaseki, the Minister of Environment and Urbanization, approximately 600,000 residential units in Istanbul would likely collapse in earthquake with a magnitude above 7.0.

The situation is even more dire when considering the sheer backlog of structural tests. At the current pace of 120 buildings per day, it could take the average Istanbul resident up to 21 years to see if their building is safe. With the North Anatolian Fault signaling an imminent quake, grassroots initiatives led by local architects, engineers, and students have emerged as a stopgap. These groups have taken to social media, circulating makeshift checklists for residents to identify visible structural deficiencies. These grassroots efforts have gained widespread popularity, sparking public conversations and helping residents make critical safety decisions. However, these movements also highlight the need for a more agile, granular, and scalable approach to Istanbul’s urgent structural testing crisis.

The fundamental aim of this project has always been to create an interactive platform where people can access critical information about their buildings in a clear, engaging, and easy-to-use way.

By leveraging recent advancements in computer vision, AI, and computing power, we've trained computers to examine the built environment much like an architect or engineer would, parsing visual information into meaningful insights. The resulting datasets are then funneled into an immersive interactive map where anyone can look up their address and access machine-generated structural insights.

When dealing with AI-generated data, transparency is essential, especially because much of this data comes from "blackbox" processes that aren't always easy to control or interpret. To address this, we made sure that every step of our computations on the initial images was clear, explainable, and easy to share. We were upfront about our objectives with each calculation and used straightforward language to encourage users to critically evaluate the AI-generated results. This approach ensures that these "risk insights" are seen as part of an ongoing process rather than definitive answers, while also equipping people with the knowledge to identify important structural indicators in their surroundings.

Ethical Concerns &
Future Research Discussions

While this study maintains an optimistic perspective on AI-driven initiatives for the public good, there remains numerous complex challenges to be addressed moving forward. Below are some highlights from this year-long discussion:

1. How can we develop better validation methods for AI assessments beyond current practices? What testing procedures ensure AI models are validated against benchmarks or ground truth data? How will structural engineers review AI-generated assessments, and how will their expertise refine the models?

2. Structural issues often stem from internal defects not visible externally. How does the project address undetectable flaws? How can we combine AI-generated surface-level data with existing datasets like municipal inventories, geological surveys, and seismic history to gain deeper insights into the built environment?

3. How can we clearly differentiate AI-generated assessments as insights rather than factual data? Could this distinction help develop solutions that protect the most vulnerable, instead of being used as grounds for forced evacuations or other punitive measures?

4. How can we communicate the limitations of AI assessments to build trust in the data without causing undue fear or stress? How can the project share information that encourages proactive safety measures?

5. Obligation to inform vs. risk of harm: Is there a moral imperative to inform residents about the structural safety of their buildings, even if the information may cause panic or distress among those unable to relocate or retrofit?

6. How should access to this data be managed to balance open availability with privacy concerns? How can the project ensure that any citizen who wishes to access the information can do so, while respecting the privacy and rights of those who choose not to participate?

7. To what extent are the AI algorithms and decision-making processes transparent to stakeholders? How does this transparency build trust in the assessments?

8. How can educational resources alongside risk assessments help residents make informed decisions? How can the project involve community members to ensure actions align with their needs and capabilities?

9. Who is responsible if an inaccurate AI assessment leads to harm or consequences for property owners?

10. What protocols should be established to prevent the misuse of AI-generated data by public or private organizations, such as governments or insurance companies, ensuring that vulnerable populations are not disproportionately targeted or disadvantaged?

Using the Map

Below is the first publicly accessible interactive map, the culmination of a year-long research effort at the Center for Spatial Research. As of now, you can explore risk insights related to "misaligned floor calculations" in Hürriyet Mahallesi, a pilot neighborhood densely populated with buildings constructed before the 1999 Earthquake, where open spaces and greenery are scarce. This area is particularly noteworthy in the IMM Earthquake Risk Simulation dataset due to its high projected levels of damage and casualty rates.

Use the search bar to find building names, door numbers, addresses, and more (currently limited to available ZIP codes), or simply hover over a building to view a detailed risk report and a visual summary of the tests conducted. The interactive map will gradually expand to cover all boroughs and ZIP codes across Istanbul, with more tests and data contributing to the overall risk score for each building.