<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
<PublisherName>OICC Press</PublisherName>
<JournalTitle>Geoconservation Research</JournalTitle>
<Issn>2588-7343</Issn>
<Volume>8</Volume>
<Issue>2</Issue>
<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
<Year>2025</Year>
<Month>12</Month>
<Day>31</Day>
</PubDate>
</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>Analytical Seismic Risk Assessment in the Aegean Region of Türkiye Using an Adapted Fine-Kinney Method</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle></VernacularTitle>
<FirstPage></FirstPage>
<LastPage></LastPage>
<ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.57647/j.gcr.2025.0802.17</ELocationID>
<Language>EN</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
<FirstName>Betül İrem</FirstName>
<LastName>Tarakçı</LastName>
<Affiliation>Department of Interior Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, İskenderun Technical University, İskenderun, Hatay 31200, Türkiye</Affiliation>
<Identifier Source="ORCID"></Identifier>
</Author>
</AuthorList>
<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
<History>
<PubDate PubStatus="received">
<Year>2025</Year>
<Month>12</Month>
<Day>31</Day>
</PubDate>
</History>
<Abstract>This study provides a quantitative seismic hazard and risk assessment for eight provinces in Türkiye’s Aegean Region by adapting the Fine–Kinney method to geological conditions. The method, commonly used in industrial safety, was modified by redefining probability (P), frequency (F), and severity (S) to reflect tectonic setting, historical seismicity, and structural vulnerability. Probability was based on each province’s shortest distance to active faults, frequency on the number of Mw ≥ 4.5 earthquakes over the past 35 years, and severity on total building stock. The model was applied to Izmir, Manisa, Aydin, Mugla, Denizli, Usak, Kutahya, and Afyonkarahisar. Izmir and Manisa were classified as “very high risk” (R = 2000), Denizli and Mugla as “high risk” (R = 300), Afyonkarahisar and Aydin as “significant risk,” Kutahya as “definite risk,” and Usak as “acceptable risk.” Seismic hazard is generally high, with risk distribution shaped by fault proximity and building density. The adapted method offers a practical framework for comparing provincial seismic risk and supports evidence-based decisions in disaster management, geoconservation, land-use planning, and earthquake-sensitive architectural and interior design.</Abstract>
<ObjectList>
<Object Type="keyword">
<Param Name="value">Seismic Hazard</Param>
</Object>
<Object Type="keyword">
<Param Name="value">Geological Hazards</Param>
</Object>
<Object Type="keyword">
<Param Name="value">Risk Assessment</Param>
</Object>
<Object Type="keyword">
<Param Name="value">Fine–Kinney Method</Param>
</Object>
<Object Type="keyword">
<Param Name="value">Aegean Region</Param>
</Object>
<Object Type="keyword">
<Param Name="value">Structural Vulnerability</Param>
</Object>
<Object Type="keyword">
<Param Name="value">Disaster Risk Reduction</Param>
</Object>
<Object Type="keyword">
<Param Name="value">Türkiye</Param>
</Object>
</ObjectList>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>