Deprem sonrası okul binalarında biyofilik mekânsal performansın analitik değerlendirilmesi: Hatay, Türkiye örneğinde bulanık TOPSIS tabanlı model

Öz

Deprem sonrası yeniden yapılanmanın yoğun yaşandığı bölgelerde yer alan okullar, çocukların yalnızca fiziksel güvenliği için değil, aynı zamanda psikolojik iyileşmesi açısından da kritik mekânlardır. Bu mekânların tasarımında öğrencilerin bilişsel yükünü dengeleyen, öğrenme süreçlerini destekleyen ve doğayla temas üzerinden iyileştirici deneyimler sunan çözümler gereklidir. Biyofilik tasarım, çocukların ruh sağlığı ve öğrenme performansı üzerindeki olumlu etkileri kanıtlanmış bir yaklaşım olmasına karşın, afet bölgelerinde uygulanabilirliği büyük ölçüde göz ardı edilmiştir. Oysa ilkokul ve ortaokul mekânlarının biyofilik tasarım ilkeleri doğrultusunda değerlendirilmesi ve iyileştirilmesi, Türkiye bağlamında yalnızca mimari bir tercih değil, aynı zamanda toplumsal bir gerekliliktir. Bu çalışma, Kahramanmaraş merkezli depremlerden ağır şekilde etkilenen Hatay ilindeki ilkokul ve ortaokulların iç mekânsal niteliklerini biyofilik tasarım ilkeleri doğrultusunda değerlendirerek, hangi okulların iyileştirme gerektirdiğinin belirlenmesine yönelik bilimsel bir yöntem ortaya koymakta; mekânsal performanslarını analiz ederek okulları Bulanık TOPSIS yöntemiyle sıralamayı amaçlamaktadır. Deprem öncesi ve sonrasında aktif kullanılan okullar örneklem olarak seçilmiş; biyofilik kriterler uzmanlar tarafından dilsel değişkenlerle değerlendirilmiş ve üçgensel bulanık sayılar kullanılarak Bulanık TOPSIS yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, doğal ışık, mekânsal açıklık ve bitkisel unsurların afet sonrası öğrenme ortamlarında belirleyici olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma, kamu kurumları ve tasarımcılara iyileştirme süreçlerinde kullanılabilecek bütüncül bir karar destek modeli sunarak deprem bölgesindeki eğitim yapılarının biyofilik performansına yönelik özgün bir katkı sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyofilik tasarım
• iç mekan
• bulanık TOPSIS
• deprem sonrası okul binaları
• çok kriterli karar verme

Analytical assessment of biophilic spatial performance in post-earthquake school buildings: A fuzzy TOPSIS-based model in the case of Hatay, Türkiye

Öz

Schools located in regions where post-earthquake reconstruction is intense are critical environments not only for the physical safety of children but also for their psychological recovery. The design of these spaces must provide solutions that balance students’ cognitive load, support learning processes, and offer restorative experiences through contact with nature. Although biophilic design is a proven approach with positive effects on children’s mental health and learning performance, its applicability in disaster-affected areas has been largely overlooked. Yet, evaluating and improving primary and secondary school environments in line with biophilic design principles is not only an architectural choice in the Turkish context but also a social necessity. This study proposes a scientific method to determine which schools require improvement by evaluating the interior spatial qualities of primary and secondary schools in Hatay a province severely affected by the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes based on biophilic design principles and ranking them using the Fuzzy TOPSIS method. Schools that remained operational before and after the earthquake were selected as the sample; biophilic criteria were assessed by experts using linguistic variables, and these evaluations were analyzed with the Fuzzy TOPSIS approach using triangular fuzzy numbers. The schools in the sample were examined and comparatively ranked according to the level of integration of biophilic elements. The results indicate that criteria such as natural light, spatial openness, and vegetative elements are decisive in post-disaster learning environments. The study provides a comprehensive decision-support model for public institutions and designers to guide improvement processes and offers an original contribution to evaluating the biophilic performance of educational buildings in the earthquake-affected region.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biophilic design
• interior space
• fuzzy TOPSIS
• post-disaster school buildings
• multi-criteria decision-making

Kaynakça

1. 1. Wilson, E.O., Biophilia, Harvard University Press, Boston, ABD, 1984.
2. 2. Wilson, E.O., Biophilia and the conservation ethic, In: Evolutionary Perspectives on Environmental Problems, 250–258, Routledge, New York, ABD, 2018.
3. 3. Fromm, E., The Heart of Man, R.N. Anshen (Ed.), Harper & Row, New York, ABD, 1964.
4. 4. Kellert, S.R., Heerwagen, J.H., Mador, M.L., Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, ABD, 2008.
5. 5. Bowler, D., Knight, L., Pullin, A., The importance of nature for health: Is there a specific benefit of contact with green space?, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, CEE Review 08–003, 2010.
6. 6. Leakas, D., Biophilia in Designing, Master's thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, ABD, 2008.
7. 7. Hudson, K. Holistic Dwelling: Integrating Biophilic Design, Environmental Psychology, and Feng Shui, DArch Thesis, University of Hawaii at Manoa, ABD, 2013.
8. 8. Çorakçı, R.E., İç Mimarlıkta Biyofilik Tasarım İlkelerinin Belirlenmesi, Doktora Tezi, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 2016.

9. 9. Mustafa, F.A., Yaseen, F.R., Towards the application of biophilic parameters in local buildings: A case study of Bilkent School, Erbil City–Iraq, Int. J. Technol., 10 (2), 363–375, 2019.
10. 10. Gray, T., Retrofitting biophilic design elements into office site sheds: Does ‘going green’ enhance the well-being and productivity of workers?, In: Almusaed A. (Ed.), Landscape Architecture: Sense of Places, Models and Applications, IntechOpen, London, 105–126, 2018.
11. 11. Moslehian, A.S., Roös, P.B., Gaekwad, J.S., Van Galen, L., Potential risks and beneficial impacts of using indoor plants in the biophilic design of healthcare facilities: A scoping review, Building and Environment, 233, 110057, 2023.
12. 12. Akrami, B., The Evaluation of Awareness and Implementation of Biophilic Design Patterns in Healthcare Environments, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 2017.
13. 13. Newman, P. Biophilic urbanism: A case study on Singapore. Journal of Urban Design, 19 (2), 162–185, 2014.
14. 14. Ünlü, E., Mimarlıkta Biyofili Olgusu ve Sağlık Yapıları, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gebze Teknik Üniversitesi, Kocaeli, 2017.
15. 15. Hartig, T., Ewans, G.W., Jamner, L.D., Davis, D.S., Garling, T., Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings, J. Environ. Psychol., 23 (2), 109–123, 2003.
16. 16. Pranjale, P., Hejiib, D.K., Biophilic design – A sustainable approach, Eco Design: Design With Nature, 1 (1), 2019.
17. 17. Cardoso-Leite, P., Buchard, A., Tissieres, I., Mussack, D., Bavelier, D., Media use, attention, mental health and academic performance among 8 to 12-year-old children, PLoS One, 16 (11), 2021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259163
18. 18. Liu, J., Green, R.J., The effect of exposure to nature on children’s psychological well-being: A systematic review, Urban For. Urban Green., 81, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.12784
19. 19. Chawla, L., Benefits of nature contact for children, J. Plan. Lit., 30 (4), 2015.
20. 20. Hand, K.L., Freeman, C., Seddon, P.J., Recio, M.R., Stein, A., Van Heezik, Y., Restricted home ranges reduce children’s opportunities to connect to nature, Landsc. Urban Plan., 172, 69–77, 2018.
21. 21. Mustapa, N.D., Muhsein, A.S., Ibrahim, I.L.H., Embracing biophilic design in primary school learning environments to improve children’s well-being, J. Design Built Environ., 24 (2), 88–98, 2024.
22. 22. Sayed, A., Nagy, G., Design strategies for integrating biophilic design to enhance students’ performance in existing primary schools in Egypt, Fayoum Univ. J. Eng., 3 (2), 27–39, 2020.
23. 23. Aristizabal, S., Byun, K., Porter, P., Clements, N., Campanella, C., Li, L., Bauer, B., Biophilic office design: Exploring the impact of a multisensory approach on human well-being, J. Environ. Psychol., 77, 101682, 2021.
24. 24. Tahoun, Z.N.A., Awareness assessment of biophilic design principles application, IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., 329(1), 012044, 2019.
25. 25. Mallen, E., Bakin, J., Stone, B., Sivakumar, R., Lanza, K., Thermal impacts of built and vegetated environments on local microclimates in an urban university campus, Urban Clim., 32, 100640, 2020.
26. 26. Terblanche, R., Khumalo, D., The impact of biophilic design in university study areas on students’ productivity, Archnet-IJAR, 19 (1), 230–247, 2025.
27. 27. Malek, N.A., Atmodiwirjo, P., Wungpatcharapon, S., Ghaziani, R., A comparative study on biophilic preferences of school learning settings: Elementary schools in Asia, Planning Malaysia, 22, 2024.
28. 28. Yaseen, F.R., Mustafa, F.A., Visibility of nature-connectedness in school buildings, Ain Shams Eng. J., 14 (5), 101973, 2023.
29. 29. Siham, H., The attributes of biophilic design (educational buildings case study), Al-Nahrain J. Eng. Sci., 26 (3), 167–174, 2023.
30. 30. Lee, H.C., Park, S.J., Assessment of importance and characteristics of biophilic design patterns in a children’s library, Sustainability, 10 (4), 987, 2018.
31. 31. Chabok, S.H., Sorourkhah, A., Edalatpanah, S.A., Spatial evaluation of primary schools using biophilic design elements: A multi-criteria decision-making approach, Architecture, 5 (2), 28–40, 2025.
32. 32. Browning, W., Determan, J., Outcomes of biophilic design for schools, Architecture, 4 (3), 479–492, 2024.
33. 33. Ghaziani, R., Lemon, M., Atmodiwirjo, P., Biophilic design patterns for primary schools, Sustainability, 13 (21), 12207, 2021.
34. 34. Ghaziani, R., Re-thinking biophilic design for primary schools: Exploring children’s preferences, Architecture, 5 (3), 42–58, 2025.
35. 35. Watchman, M., DeKay, M., Demers, C.M., Potvin, A., Design vocabulary and schemas for biophilic experiences in cold climate schools, Archit. Sci. Rev., 65 (2), 101–119, 2022.
36. 36. Atmodiwirjo, P., Ghaziani, R., Wungpatcharapon, S., Djuwita, R., Yatmo, Y.A., Nature-related features and children’s well-being in post-disaster school design, Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ., 16 (1), 143–156, 2025.
37. 37. Lanzaro, B., Ucci, M., Teacher and parent perception of biophilic conditions in primary-school environments and their impact on children’s wellbeing, Architecture, 4 (2), 367–389, 2024.
38. 38. Söderlund, J., Newman, P., Improving mental health in prisons through biophilic design, Prison J., 97 (6), 750–772, 2017.
39. 39. Gür, M., Kaprol, T., The participation of biophilic design in the design of the post-pandemic living space, IGI Global, 75–106, 2022.
40. 40. Tarakçı, B.İ., From local disasters to global design discourse: Interior architecture theses in Türkiye, Trends High. Educ., 4 (4), 72–86, 2025.
41. 41. Tarakçı, B.İ., Afet Sonrası Barınma Alanlarına Yönelik Uluslararası Yayınların Bibliyometrik Analizi (2000–2025). Afet ve Risk Dergisi, 8 (3), 1323-1340, 2025.
42. 42. SBB, 2023 Kahramanmaraş ve Hatay Depremleri Raporu, T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı, Erişim: https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-Kahramanmaras-ve-Hatay-Depremleri-Raporu.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 26.12.2025.
43. 43. Tarakçı, B.İ., Kavut, İ.E., Problems experienced in post-disaster temporary shelter units: Hatay/İskenderun case, Turk Deprem Arastirma Dergisi, 7 (2), 321–334, 2025.
44. 44. TÜİK, Resmi istatistik veri tabanı, https://data.tuik.gov.tr, Erişim Tarihi: 26.12.2025.
45. 45. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı, Öğrenci sayıları, https://istatistik.meb.gov.tr/OgrenciSayisi/Index, Erişim Tarihi: 26.12.2025.
46. 46. Chen, C.T., Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment, Fuzzy Sets Syst., 114, 5–18, 2000.
47. 47. Erdemir N., Öztürk F., Kaya G.K., Integrated decision support model for performance evaluation of public staff: using AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 37 (4), 1809-1822. 2022.
48. 48. Lamrini, L., Abounaima, M.C., Talibi Alaoui, M., New distributed-TOPSIS approach for multi-criteria decision-making problems in a big data context, J. Big Data, 10 (1), 97, 2023.
49. 49. Elkady, S., Mehryar, S., Hernantes, J., Labaka, L., Prioritizing stakeholder interactions in disaster management: A TOPSIS-based decision support tool, Prog. Disaster Sci., 22, 100320, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2024.100320
50. 50. Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Springer, Berlin, Almanya, 1981.
51. 51. Wang, Y.J., Lee, H.S., Generalizing TOPSIS for fuzzy multiple-criteria group decision-making, Comput. Math. Appl., 53, 1762–1772, 2007.
52. 52. Boran, F. E., Genç, S., Kurt, M., & Akay, D., A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert systems with applications, 36 (8), 11363-11368, 2009.
53. 53. Ömürgönülşen M, Menten C., Bulanık TOPSIS yöntemi ile Ankara ili için olası afet sonrası geçici barınma alanlarının seçimi. Doğal Afetler ve Çevre Dergisi 7 (1), 159–175, 2021.
54. 54. Ploskas, N., & Papathanasiou, J., A decision support system for multiple criteria alternative ranking using TOPSIS and VIKOR in fuzzy and nonfuzzy environments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 377, 1-30, 2019.
55. 55. Tarakçi, B. İ., A multi-criteria analytical evaluation of construction systems for temporary shelters based on an AHP–TOPSIS integrated approach. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 1–19, 2026