Post-disaster Resettlement: Developing Permanent Housing Scenarios in Türkiye

Abstract

This study examines the development of two permanent housing design scenarios in Malatya's Yeşilyurt district following the February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. It aims to balance local architectural heritage preservation with sustainable, resilient housing solutions that promote social cohesion and long-term recovery. Using a mixed-methods approach, the study includes semi-structured interviews and field observations to identify key themes connecting user needs with housing design. The proposed scenarios emphasize sustainability through local materials, energy-efficient designs, and adaptable layouts. Agricultural and communal spaces are integrated to strengthen the community's socio-economic fabric. The study’s context-specific findings may limit generalizability but provide valuable insights for similar post-disaster housing projects. This research offers a user-centered, culturally sensitive framework for integrating traditional architecture with modern resilience strategies, presenting a model for other earthquake-prone regions.

Keywords

• Post-disaster permanent housing
• Disaster risk reduction
• Cultural heritage preservation
• Sustainable reconstruction
• User-centered design

Afet Sonrası Yeniden Yerleşim: Türkiye'de Kalıcı Konut Senaryolarının Geliştirilmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremlerinin ardından Malatya'nın Yeşilyurt ilçesinde geliştirilen iki kalıcı konut tasarımı senaryosunu incelemektedir. Amaç, yerel mimari mirasın korunması ile sosyal uyumu ve uzun vadeli iyileşmeyi destekleyen sürdürülebilir ve dayanıklı konut çözümleri arasında bir denge kurmaktır. Karma yöntemli bir yaklaşım kullanılan çalışmada, kullanıcı ihtiyaçları ile konut tasarımı arasındaki temel temaları belirlemek amacıyla yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ve saha gözlemleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Önerilen senaryolar, yerel malzemeler, enerji verimli tasarımlar ve uyarlanabilir planlarla sürdürülebilirliğe vurgu yapmaktadır. Tarımsal ve ortak yaşam alanlarının entegrasyonu, topluluğun sosyo-ekonomik yapısını güçlendirmeyi hedeflemektedir. Çalışmanın bağlamsal bulguları genellenebilirliği sınırlayabilir; ancak benzer afet sonrası konut projeleri için değerli içgörüler sunmaktadır. Bu araştırma, geleneksel mimariyi modern dayanıklılık stratejileriyle bütünleştiren, kullanıcı odaklı ve kültürel hassasiyeti olan bir çerçeve sunarak, deprem riski taşıyan diğer bölgeler için de uygulanabilir bir model ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Afet sonrası kalıcı konut
• Afet riskinin azaltılmas
• Kültürel mirasın korunması
• Sürdürülebilir yeniden inşa

References

1. Ahmed, I. (2011). An overview of post‐disaster permanent housing reconstruction in developing countries. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 2(2), 148-164. https://doi.org/10.1108/17595901111149141
2. Akyıldız, N. A. (2021). Geleneksel Kırsal Yerleşimlerde Sosyo-Kültürel Değişimin Mekâna Yansımaları: Malatya/Darende Günpınar Yerleşimi Örneği. Avrasya Uluslararası Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(29), 84-99.
3. Alaeddinoğlu, F., Sargın, S., & Okudum, R. (2016). 2011 Van Depremi ve Kentsel Nüfusta Mekânsal Farklılaşmalar. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi(39), 133-149.
4. Aliyu, M. (2015). Built Environment in Transition: The Significances of Postmodern Residential Designs in Cultural Sustainability. International Journal of Architecture, Arts and Applications, 1(2), 30-40. https://doi.org/ 10.11648/j.ijaaa.20150102.11
5. Andersson, D. E., & Shyr, O. F. (2024). Perspective Chapter: Socio-Economic Impacts of Earthquakes–A Survey of the Planning Literature. Advances in Earthquake Research and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1007475
6. Atıcı, K., & Yaşar, M. (2019). Malatya Hatice Günay Evi Mimari Özellikleri ve Restorasyona Yönelik Öneriler. Journal of Art and Human, 3(1), 1309-7156.
7. Aysan, F. Y. (1985). The Erzurum‐Kars earthquake area revisited. Disasters, 9(1), 23-31.
8. Aysan, Y., & Oliver, P. (1987). Housing and Culture after Earthquakes: A guide for future policy making on housing in seismic areas. Oxford polytechnic.

9. Ben Haman, O., Hulse, K., & Jacobs, K. (2021). Social inclusion and the role of housing. In Handbook of Social Inclusion: Research and Practices in Health and Social Sciences (pp. 1-20). Springer.
10. Boelhouwer, P., & van der Heijden, H. (2018). The effect of earthquakes on the housing market and the quality of life in the province of Groningen, the Netherlands. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-018-9600-y
11. Boyraz, Z., & Budak, E. (2017). Doğal afetlerin ayvalı (Darende/Malatya) yerleşmesi üzerindeki etkileri. Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken/Journal of World of Turks, 9(3), 7-23.
12. Cajilig, P. G. (2017). Designing life after the storm: Improvisations in post-disaster housing reconstruction as socio-moral practice. AVANT. Pismo Awangardy Filozoficzno-Naukowej(S), 79-88.
13. Cao, S. (2018). Design culture on healthy life under the view of ecological civilization. 2018 4th International Conference on Universal Village (UV),
14. Coburn, A., & Spence, R. (2002). Earthquake protection. John Wiley & Sons.
15. Damcı, E., Temür, R., Kanbir, Z., Şekerci, Ç., & Köroğlu, E. Ö. (2025). Comprehensive investigation of damage due to 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes in Türkiye: causes, consequences and mitigation. Journal of Building Engineering, 99, 111420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.111420
16. Dias, N. T., Keraminiyage, K., & DeSilva, K. K. (2016). Long-term satisfaction of post disaster resettled communities: The case of post tsunami–Sri Lanka. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 25(5), 581-594. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-11-2015-0264
17. Dikmen, N., & Elias-Ozkan, S. T. (2016). Housing after disaster: a post occupancy evaluation of a reconstruction project. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 19, 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.08.020
18. Enginöz, E. (2004). A study in post-disaster home environments: a comparative case study between people living in villages and in the town center of Dinar, Turkey. Second International Conference on Post-Disaster Reconstruction in Developing Countries,
19. Enginöz, E. B., & Ünlü, A. (2010). The evaluation of design in post-disaster houses: the case of Afyon-Dinar İTÜDERGİSİ/a, 5(2).
20. Gomaa, B., & Sakr, N. (2015). Social Sustainability; Maintenance of Socio-Cultural Characteristics: A Case Study of El-Raml Station. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(2), 203-203. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2015.v4n2p203
21. Hayles, C. S. (2010). An examination of decision making in post disaster housing reconstruction. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 1(1), 103-122. https://doi.org/10.1108/17595901011026508
22. İnal, E., & Ünlü, A. (2009). Türkiye'de afet sonrası kalıcı konutlarda esneklik kavramının değerlendirilmesi. İTÜDERGİSİ/a, 8(2).
23. Indrawan, S. E., Purwanto, L., & Satwiko, P. (2021). Kajian Makna Hunian Paska Bencana dalam Sudut Pandang Filosofis. http://dspace.uc.ac.id/handle/123456789/6426
24. Johnson, C. (2007). Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing after disasters: 1999 earthquakes in Turkey. Habitat international, 31(1), 36-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2006.03.002
25. Karki, J., Matthewman, S., & Grayman, J. H. (2022). Nayã Ghar (A new house): examining post-earthquake housing reconstruction issues in Nepal. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 78, 103116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103116
26. Kennedy, J., Ashmore, J., Babister, E., & Kelman, I. (2008). The meaning of ‘build back better’: evidence from post‐tsunami Aceh and Sri Lanka. Journal of contingencies and crisis management, 16(1), 24-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2008.00529.x
27. Kürüm Varolgüneş, (2020). Post-disaster permanent housing: the case of the 2003 Bingöl earthquake in Turkey. https://doi.org/10.1108/dpm-09-2019-0307
28. Kürüm Varolgüneş, (2021). Success factors for post‐disaster permanent housing: Example of Turkish earthquakes. The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication-TOJDAC, 11(1), 115-130.
29. Kürüm Varolgüneş, F., & Şeker, İ. H. (2025). Sustainable urban resettlement in earthquake zones: evaluating housing and design strategies post-2023 Kahramanmaras earthquake. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-12-2024-0138
30. Lagorio, H. J. (1990). Earthquakes: an architect's guide to nonstructural seismic hazar ds. Wiley.
31. Limoncu, S., & Bayülgen, C. (2005). Türkiye’de afet sonrası yaşanan barınma sorunları. Megaron, 1(1), 18.
32. Lyons, M., Schilderman, T., & Boano, C. (2010). Building Back Better: Delivering people-centered housing reconstruction at scale. Practical Action, London South Bank University & International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).
33. Marcillia, S. R., & Ohno, R. (2012). Learning from residents’ adjustments in self-built and donated post disaster housing after Java earthquake 2006. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.007
34. Memmott, P., & Keys, C. (2015). Redefining architecture to accommodate cultural difference: Designing for cultural sustainability. Architectural Science Review, 58(4), 278-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2015.1032210
35. Montalbano, G., & Santi, G. (2023). Sustainability of Temporary Housing in Post-Disaster Scenarios: A Requirement-Based Design Strategy. Buildings, 13(12), 2952. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13122952
36. Oliver‐Smith, A. (1991). Successes and failures in post‐disaster resettlement. Disasters, 15(1), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.1991.tb00423.x
37. Ophiyandri, T., Amaratunga, D., & Keraminiyage, K. (2016). Advantages and limitations of community-based post-disaster housing reconstruction projects. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(4), 420-431. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-08-2014-0066
38. Özyılmaz, F., & Aluçlu, İ. (2009). Malatya’nın Geleneksel Konut Mimarisi ve Günümüz Konutlarıyla Karşılaştırılması. Anadolu Mimarlık Dergisi, 1(3).
39. Peacock, W. G., Dash, N., Zhang, Y., & Van Zandt, S. (2018). Post-disaster sheltering, temporary housing and permanent housing recovery. In Handbook of Disaster Research (pp. 569-594). Springer.
40. Perera, T., Weerasoori, I., & Karunarathne, H. (2012). An evaluation of success and failures in Hambantota, Siribopura resettlement housing program: lessons learned. Sri Lanka Journal of Real Estate(6).
41. Prasetyo, L., Tobing, R. R., & Budiyuwono, H. (2018). Ecologicals and culture concepts in post-disasters housing design in Yogyakarta. ARTEKS: Jurnal Teknik Arsitektur, 2(2), 125-136. https://doi.org/10.30822/arteks.v2i1.46
42. Sev, A. (2009). How can the construction industry contribute to sustainable development? A conceptual framework. Sustainable Development, 17(3), 161-173. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.373
43. Shehab, A. M. (2018). Influences of socio-cultural values to community housing design in the gaza strip palestine Doctoral thesis in Philosophy (Architecture). Universiti Teknologi Malaysia].
44. Shrader, E., & Delaney, P. (2000). Gender and post-disaster reconstruction: The case of Hurricane Mitch in Honduras and Nicaragua. World Bank, Draft Report.
45. Steinberg, F. (2007). Housing reconstruction and rehabilitation in Aceh and Nias, Indonesia—Rebuilding lives. Habitat international, 31(1), 150-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2006.11.002
46. Şahin, M., & Eroğlu, B. (2020). Malatya geleneksel konutları ve dokusu üzerine bir yaklaşım: Yakınca evleri. IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 740-756.
47. Şahin, Y. D. (2020). Eski Malatya’dan Malatya’ya Mevsimlik Göç ile Başlayan Mekân Kurma Geleneğinin, Zorunlu Göç ile Kalıcı Yerleşime Dönüşmesi: Sivil mimari yerleşim özellikleri üzerine bir inceleme. İDEALKENT, 11(30), 795-817.
48. Tafti, M. T., & Bashiri, M. (2022). Navigating transition: post-disaster housing pathways of households. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 37(4), 1745-1767. 022) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-021-09918-w
49. Tas, N., Cosgun, N., & Tas, M. (2007). A qualitative evaluation of the after earthquake permanent housings in Turkey in terms of user satisfaction—Kocaeli, Gundogdu Permanent Housing model. Building and Environment, 42(9), 3418-3431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.09.002
50. Tas, P. G., & Taşkın, A. (2024). Clustering approach with self-organizing maps for unmanned aerial vehicle response to post-earthquake fires: An application for Istanbul. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 42(3), 692-700.
51. Temiz, H. (1990). Malatya Yeşilyurt yöresel mimari örneklemesi: analiz ve değerlendirme Fırat Üniversitesi]. Elazığ.
52. Tuncer, O. C. (2007). Anadolu kervan yolları. Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları.
53. UNDRO. (2018). Shelter After Disaster: Guidelines for Assistance. Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Co-Ordinator,United Nations.
54. Uzun, F.V., & Somuncu, M. (2023). Depremler Sonrası Antakya Kentsel Kültürel Mirası Hakkında Değerlendirme. Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi, 10(1), 9-23.
55. Varolgüneş, F.K. (2021). Yerel/Vernaküler Mimarinin Sürdürülebilirlik Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi: Geleneksel Bingöl Konutlari Örneği. Journal Of International Social Research, 14(76).
56. Varolgüneş, F.K. (2021). Sosyal Sürdürülebilirlik Performansının Kalıcı Afet Konutlarında Değerlendirilmesi: Bingöl Örneği. İDEALKENT, 12(32), 757-784.
57. Varolgüneş, S. (2025). A bibliometric analysis of the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes: trends, gaps, and policy implications. Natural Hazards, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-025-07305-0.