Mevzuatın ötesinde toplumsal gerçeklik: 6 Şubat depremleri ve geçici barınma özelinde Türkiye’de afet yönetimi

Öz

Çalışma, Türkiye’deki afet yönetimi pratiğini kamu yönetimi ve antropoloji disiplinlerinin kesişiminde inceleyerek, bürokratik rasyonalite (devlet aklı) ile toplumsal gerçeklik (toplum refleksi) arasındaki ontolojik boşluğu analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma kapsamında, 6 Şubat 2023 depremlerinden en çok etkilenen dört ildeki (Hatay, Adıyaman, Malatya, Kahramanmaraş) konteyner kent yaşamı, netnografik (dijital etnografi) yöntemle analiz edilmiştir. YouTube, TikTok, X ve Şikayetvar platformlarından derlenen dijital veri seti (n=385) nitel içerik analiziyle incelenmiştir. Bulgular, merkezi yönetimin afet sonrası lojistik ve barınma sağlama konusunda yüksek bir başarı sergilediğini; ancak mahremiyet, sosyal dayanışma ve kültürel uyum boyutlarında ciddi bir kopuş yaşandığını kanıtlamaktadır. Devletin tek tip ve sayısal standartlarının, toplumun duygusal ihtiyaçları ve yerel bilgi ağlarıyla tam olarak örtüşmediği tespit edilmiştir. Yaşanan bu sosyokültürel uyuşmazlık, inşa edilen mekanların afetzedeler tarafından bir yaşam alanı olarak benimsenmesini zorlaştırarak toplumsal entegrasyonu zayıflatmaktadır. Bu durum, afet yönetiminin sadece eksiksiz bir mevzuat veya teknik operasyonlarla başarıya ulaşamayacağını göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, Türkiye'de afet yönetiminin; yerel dinamikleri, kültürel kodları ve insan odaklı yönetişimi merkeze alan disiplinler arası bir süreç olarak yeniden tasarlanması gerektiği vurgulanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Afet Yönetimi
• Netnografi
• Konteyner Kentler
• Sosyokültürel Uyum

Social reality beyond legislation: Disaster management in Turkey, focusing on the February 6th earthquakes and temporary shelter

Öz

The study aims to analyze the ontological gap between bureaucratic rationality (state reason) and social reality (societal reflex) by examining disaster management practices in Turkey at the intersection of public administration and anthropology. Within the scope of the research, container city life in the four provinces most affected by the February 6, 2023 earthquakes (Hatay, Adıyaman, Malatya, Kahramanmaraş) was analyzed using netnographic (digital ethnography) methods. A digital dataset (n=385) compiled from YouTube, TikTok, X, and Şikayetvar platforms was examined through qualitative content analysis. The findings demonstrate that while the central government exhibited high success in providing post-disaster logistics and physical shelter, a severe disconnect occurred in the dimensions of privacy, social solidarity, and cultural adaptation. It was determined that the state's uniform and quantitative standards do not fully align with the emotional needs and local knowledge networks of the society. This sociocultural mismatch complicates the adoption of the constructed spaces as living environments by disaster victims, thereby weakening social integration. This indicates that disaster management cannot achieve success solely through comprehensive legislation or technical operations. In conclusion, it is emphasized that disaster management in Turkey must be redesigned as an interdisciplinary process centered on local dynamics, cultural codes, and human-centered governance.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Disaster Management
• Netnography
• Container Cities
• Sociocultural Adaptation

Kaynakça

1. Ahrens, J., & Rudolph, P. M. (2006). The importance of governance in risk reduction and disaster management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14(4), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2006.00497.x
2. Alrehaili, N. R., Almutairi, Y. N., Alghamdi, H. M., & Almuthaybiri, M. S. (2022). A structural review on disaster management models and their contributions. International Journal of Disaster Management/Smong News, 5(2), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.24815/ijdm.v5i2.27087
3. Amin, N. M., Nasruddin, H. N., & Azmi, A. (2025). Integrating disaster risk management into occupational health services: a framework for technological hazard resilience in high-risk industries. Industrial Health, https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2025-0068
4. Balaban, S. M., Dogulu, C., Akdede, N., Akoglu, H., Karakayali, O., Yilmaz, S., & Karanci, A. N. (2025). Emergency response and community impact after February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaras Pazarcik and Elbistan Earthquakes: Reconnaissance findings and observations on affected region in Turkiye. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 23(3), 1053-1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-02084-2
5. Bempah, S. A., & Øyhus, A. O. (2017). The role of social perception in disaster risk reduction: Beliefs, perception, and attitudes regarding flood disasters in communities along the Volta River, Ghana. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 23, 104-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.04.013
6. Benedetti, C., Marini, S., & Pica, K. (2020). LE RETI DI SOLIDARIETÀ URBANA COME ANTIDOTO PER LE EPIDEMIE GLOBALI. Documenti geografici, 0(1), 647-659. https://doi.org//10.19246/DOCUGEO2281-7549/202001_41
7. Bly, J., Hugo Francescutti, L., & Weiss, D. (2021). Disaster Management: A State-of-the-Art Review. In Natural Hazards - Impacts, Adjustments and Resilience, IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94489
8. Boin, A., & Lodge, M. (2016). Designing resilient institutions for crisis management. Public Administration, 94(2), 289-298. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12264

9. Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652-661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
10. Coppola, D. P. (2011). The management of disasters. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 1–35). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0- 12-382174-4.00001-x
11. Cornia, A., Dressel, K., & Pfeil, P. (2016). Risk cultures and dominant approaches towards disasters in seven European countries. Journal of Risk Research, 19(3), 288-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.962519
12. Dayanır, H., Çınar, A. K., Akgün, Y., & Çorumluoğlu, Ö. (2022). Delphi Yöntemi Kullanarak Afet Sonrası Geçici Barınma Alanı Seçimi ve Planlaması Ölçütlerinin Belirlenmesi: İzmir/Seferihisar Örneği. Doğal Afetler ve Çevre Dergisi, 8(1), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.21324/dacd.957550
13. Erkan, B. B. (2023). Disaster risk management in Turkey. İçinde A. Özerdem & A. E. Öztürk (Ed.), A Companion to Modern Turkey’s Centennial: Political, Sociological, Economic and Institutional Transformations since 1923 (ss. 553-568). Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474492515.003.0043
14. Gupta, S., Starr, M., Farahani, R., & Matinrad, N. (2016). Disaster Management from a POM Perspective: Mapping a New Domain. Production and Operations Management, 25(10), 1611-1637. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12591
15. Hadjistavropoulos, T., Malloy, D. C., Sharpe, D., Green, S. M., & Fuchs-Lacelle, S. (2002). The relative importance of the ethical principles adopted by the American Psychological Association. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 43(4), 254-259. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086921
16. Haque, M. (2019). Indigenous knowledge and practices in disaster management: Experiences of the coastal people of Bangladesh. İçinde B. Zutshi, A. Ahmad, & A. B. Srungarapati (Ed.), Disaster Risk Reduction: Community Resilience and Responses (ss. 59-72). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1678-4_4
17. Henderson, L. J. (2004). Emergency and Disaster: Pervasive Risk and Public Bureaucracy in Developing Nations. Public Organization Review, 4(2), 103-119. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PORJ.0000031624.46153.b2
18. Hermansson, H. (2019). Challenges to Decentralization of Disaster Management in Turkey: The Role of Political- Administrative Context. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(5), 417-431. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1466898
19. Hilhorst, D., Boersma, K., & Raju, E. (2020). Research on politics of disaster risk governance: Where are we headed? Politics and Governance, 8(4), 214-219. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i4.3768
20. Hoffman, S. M. (2015). Culture: The crucial factor in hazard, risk, and disaster recovery: The anthropological perspective. İçinde J. F. Shroder (Ed.), Hazards, Risks, and Disasters in Society (ss. 289-305). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-396451-9.00016-5
21. Hoofnagle, C. J., Van Der Sloot, B., & Borgesius, F. Z. (2019). The European Union general data protection regulation: what it is and what it means. Information & Communications Technology Law, 28(1), 65-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2019.1573501
22. Hurova, I. V., & Shkurov, Y. V. (2023). Man in digitized urban socio-cultural space. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, 24, 75-87. https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i24.292928
23. Ibrahim, A., Salifu, A., & Peprah, C. (2023). Does governance matter when disaster looms? Zooming into proactive institutional measures for flood risk management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 97, 104021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.104021
24. Imperiale, A. J., & Vanclay, F. (2021). Conceptualizing community resilience and the social dimensions of risk to overcome barriers to disaster risk reduction and sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 29(5), 891-905. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2182
25. Johnson, B. B., & Swedlow, B. (2021). Cultural Theory’s Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research. Risk Analysis, 41(3), 429-455. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13404
26. Kaygusuz, İ. (2025). Dijital Kültürde Gündelik Hayat ve Kimlik Sunmanın Yeni Biçimleri. TAM Akademi Dergisi, 4(1), 10-27. https://doi.org/10.58239/tamde.2025.01.001
27. Kepenek, E., & Gençel, Z. (2016). Türkiye’de afet zararlarını azaltma çalışmaları: Mevzuat açısından genel bir değerlendirme. Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications, 1(1), 44-50. https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.358249
28. Korkın, E., & Genç, F. N. (2021). Strategic Disaster Management: The Case of Turkey. İçinde C. Babaoğlu, E. Akman, & O. Kulaç (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Global Challenges for Improving Public Services and Government Operations (ss. 310-329). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-5854-2.ch015
29. Kozinets, R. V., Dolbec, P. Y., & Earley, A. (2014). Netnographic Analysis: Understanding Culture through Social Media Data. İçinde U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (ss. 262-276). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446294406.n18
30. Kristian, I., Kurniawan, Y. T., Khaerani, T. R., Pramana, I., & Marbun, F. K. (2025). Beyond Bureaucratic Rigidity: A Dynamic Capability Framework for Public Sector Disaster Response. Publica: Jurnal Pemikiran Administrasi Negara, 17(1), 39-61. https://doi.org/10.15408/publica.v17i1.40873
31. LaLone, M. B. (2012). Neighbors helping neighbors: An examination of the social capital mobilization process for community resilience to environmental disasters. Journal of Applied Social Science, 6(2), 209-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1936724412459424
32. Menegatto, M., Freschi, G., Bulfon, M., & Zamperini, A. (2024). Collectively Remembering Environmental Disasters: The Vaia Storm as a Case Study. Sustainability, 16(19), 8418. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198418
33. Neuendorf, K. A. (2018). Content analysis and thematic analysis. İçinde P. Brough (Ed.), Advanced research methods for applied psychology (ss. 211-223). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315181659-19
34. Nigg, J. M. (1995). Disaster recovery as a social process. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 13(1), 1-18.
35. Nojavan, M., Salehi, E., & Omidvar, B. (2018). Conceptual change of disaster management models: A thematic analysis. Jàmbá : Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 10(1), 451. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v10i1.451
36. Oktay, F. (2015). The preparation and integration of Turkey’s National Disaster Response Plan. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 150, 131-140. https://doi.org/10.2495/DMAN150011
37. Oliver-Smith, A. (1996). Anthropological research on hazards and disasters. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25, 303-328. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.303
38. Oliver-Smith, A. (2005). Communities after catastrophe: Reconstructing the material, reconstituting the social. İçinde S. E. Hyland (Ed.), Community Building in the Twenty-First Century (ss. 45-70). School of American Research Press.
39. Oliver-Smith, A. (2015). Hazards and Disaster research in contemporary anthropology. İçinde J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition) (ss. 546-553). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.12188-9
40. Owi, T., Mackee, J., & Gajendran, T. (2024). Analysing institutional responses towards disaster risk reduction: challenges and antecedents. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 10.47389/39(No 4), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.47389/39.4.61
41. Peternel, L., & Podjed, D. (2024). Container life in post-earthquake Croatia. Focaal, 2024(98), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3167/fcl.2024.980106
42. Príncipe, A., Filho, A., Machado, B., Barbosa, J., Winkler, I., & Ferreira, C. (2023). Decision Support Frameworks in Public Health Emergencies: A Systematic Review of Dynamic Models in Complex Contexts. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(17), 6685. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20176685
43. Raikes, J., Smith, T., Jacobson, C., & Baldwin, C. (2019). Pre-disaster planning and preparedness for floods and droughts: A systematic review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 38, 101207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101207
44. Sari, B. (2025). Disaster management following the great Kahramanmaras earthquakes in 2023, Türkiye. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 25(6), 2031-2043. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-2031-2025
45. Sawalha, I. (2020). A contemporary perspective on the disaster management cycle. Foresight, 22(4), 469–482. https://doi.org/10.1108/fs-11-2019-0097
46. Sharma, A., & Ray, M. (2024). People, Culture, Knowledge, and Skill: A Philosophical Approach to Disaster and Environment (With Special Reference to the Works of Kenji Miyazawa). İçinde Challenges, Strategies, and Resiliency in Disaster and Risk Management (ss. 97-127). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-2721-0.ch005
47. Sigmund, Z., Radujković, M., & Atalić, J. (2022). The Role of Disaster Risk Governance for Effective Post-Disaster Risk Management—Case of Croatia. Buildings, 12(4), 420. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12040420
48. Suarez, D., Gomez, C., Medaglia, A., Akhavan-Tabatabaei, R., & Grajales, S. (2024). Integrated Decision Support for Disaster Risk Management: Aiding Preparedness and Response Decisions in Wildfire Management. Inf. Syst. Res., 35(2), 609–628. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.0118
49. Sukhwani, V., Napitupulu, H., Jingnan, D., Yamaji, M., & Shaw, R. (2021). Enhancing cultural adequacy in post- disaster temporary housing. Progress in Disaster Science, 11, 100186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2021.100186
50. Şahin, A. U. (2020). Afet yönetimi ve planlaması perspektifinden Türkiye afet müdahale planının değerlendirilmesi. Resilience, 4(1), 129-158. https://doi.org/10.32569/resilience.694605
51. Talbert, S. J. (2006). The Golden Hour: The Role of Historic Preservation Law in the Immediate Aftermath of Disaster. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis, 36, 10634.
52. Tiernan, A., Drennan, L., Nalau, J., Onyango, E., Morrissey, L., & Mackey, B. (2018). A review of themes in disaster resilience literature and international practice since 2012. Policy Design and Practice, 2(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2018.1507240
53. Vu, B., Obaitor, O., Grobusch, L., Sett, D., Hagenlocher, M., Schinkel, U., Nguyen, L., Bachofer, F., Ngo, S., & Garschagen, M. (2025). Enablers and barriers to implementing effective disaster risk management according to good governance principles: Lessons from Central Vietnam. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 120, 105344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105344
54. Tosun, S., & Maden, F. (2023). Analysis of kinetic disaster relief shelters and a novel adaptive shelter proposal. Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications, 8(1), 438-455. https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.1216727
55. Tuncer, C. O. (2022). Kamu Yönetimi Bağlamında Afet Yönetiminde Örnek Bir Uygulama: AYDES. İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi, 2022(59), 158-180. https://doi.org/10.47998/ikad.1154104
56. Turner, P., & Turner, S. (2009). Triangulation in practice. Virtual Reality, 13(3), 171-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-009-0117-2
57. Weldrick, R., Canham, S., Mahmood, A., Patille, R., & Gurung, S. (2024). Social Integration In Temporary Housing: Perspectives of Older Persons Experiencing Homelessness. Innovation in Aging, 8(Supplement_1), 340. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igae098.1108
58. Yaman, F., Ayrancı, E., & Helvacıoğlu, İ. H. (2020). Türkiye’nin ulusal afet ve acil durum yönetim sisteminin mevcut hali ve yeni bir yönetim modeli önerisi. Resilience, 4(2), 205-220. https://doi.org/10.32569/resilience.702250
59. Yılmaz, G., & Usta, G. (2019). Artvin ili Hopa sel afetinin afet yönetimi açısından etkinliğinin değerlendirilmesi. The Journal of International Social Research, 12(67), 1124-1132. https://doi.org//10.17719/jisr.2019.3801
60. Yilmaz, M. U. (2025). Enhancing sustainable flood risk management through a novel fuzzy multi-stakeholder framework. Water Resources Management, 39(3), 1453-1480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-024-03719-z