Sosyal Sürdürülebilirlik Performansının Kalıcı Afet Konutlarında Değerlendirilmesi: Bingöl Örneği

Öz

Afet sonrası kalıcı konut uygulamalarının en tartışılan sonuçlarından biri afetzedelerin yaşam biçimleriyle uyumsuz yeni yerleşim alanlarının oluşturulmasıdır. Memnuniyetsizlikle sonuçlanan bu durum, ya yerleşim alanlarının terkedilmesine ya da kullanıcı eliyle değişikliğe uğratılmasına neden olmaktadır. Konut üretim süreci sadece bir barınma probleminin çözümü olarak görülmemeli, tüm toplumsal ihtiyaçlara cevap veren bir fiziksel çevre yaratma eylemi olarak ele alınmalıdır. Bu bağlamda, yapılan çalışma ile toplumların yaşam kalitesini etkileyen sosyal sürdürülebilirlik parametreleri derlenerek Türkiye’de deprem sonrası üretilmiş toplu konut örnek alanları özelinde değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında veri toplamak için gözlem, anket ve görüşme tekniği kullanılmıştır. Anket çalışmasında kullanıcıların demografik özellikleri dikkate alınarak yaşadıkları konutu ve yapılı çevreyi değerlendirmeleri istenmiştir. Türkiye’nin doğusunda bulunan Bingöl İlinde 2003 depremi sonrası yapılmış olan İnönü, Uydukent ve İçmeler Mahallesi toplu konutlarında yaşayan 207 konut kullanıcısıyla yüz yüze görüşülerek basit rastlantısal örneklem yöntemi ile anket çalışması yürütülmüş ve veriler elde edilmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında “Afet sonrası kalıcı konut üretiminde sosyal sürdürülebilirlik parametrelerinin dikkate alınması kullanıcı memnuniyetinde önemli role sahiptir” hipotezi irdelenmiştir. Sonuç olarak; konutun, sosyal, kültürel ve bölgesel özelliklerle uyumu, kullanıcı katılımı, yeniden yerleşimin benimsenmesi, aidiyet duygusu, ortak değerlerin pekişmesi, güven hissi, kimlik ve yaşam kalitesinde iyileşme gibi parametrelerin kullanıcı memnuniyetini önemli düzeyde etkilediği tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kalıcı afet konutları
• Sosyal sürdürülebilirlik
• Kullanıcı memnuniyeti
• toplu konutlar
• deprem

Evaluation of Social Sustainability Performance in Post-disaster Permanent Housing: Case of Bingöl

Öz

One of the most controversial results of permanent housing practices after a disaster is the creation of new residential areas that are incompatible with the way of life of disaster victims. This situation, resulting in dissatisfaction, either causes residential areas to be abandoned or modified by the user. In addition, it reveals that the housing production process should not be seen only as a solution to the housing problem, and the importance of creating new residential areas considering all social needs. With this study, social sustainability parameters affecting the quality of life of communities were compiled and evaluated in the context of mass housing project areas produced after earthquakes in Turkey. The majority of mass housing production in Turkey is carried out by the Housing Development Administer (TOKI). Observation, questionnaire and interview techniques were used to collect data within the scope of the study. In the survey study, users were asked to evaluate their housing and built environment by taking into account their demographic characteristics. 207 residential users living in Inonu, Uydukent and Içmeler neighborhood mass housing, which were made after the 2003 earthquake in Bingöl in eastern Turkey, were interviewed face-to-face and surveyed by simple random sampling method and data on the subject were obtained. As part of the study, the hypothesis that "taking into account social sustainability parameters in the production of post-disaster permanent housing plays an important role in user satisfaction" was examined. As a result, housing social, cultural and regional characteristics for compliance with the restructuring settlement and the adoption of a sense of belonging, shared values strengthen a sense of trust, identity, improvement in quality of life, user participation in design, the improvement of living standards the impact on parameters such as user satisfaction has been determined to be significant..

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Permanent housing
• social sustainability
• user satisfaction
• mass housing
• earthquake

Kaynakça

1. Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetim Başkanlığı [AFAD] (2019). Türkiye’deki Depremler, Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetim Başkanlığ. 17 Eylül 2019 tarihinde https://www.afad.gov.tr/ adresinden erişildi.
2. Akadiri, P.O., Chinyio, E.A. ve Olomolaiye, P.O. (2012). Design of a sustainable building: A conceptual framework for implementing sustainability in the building sector. Buildings 2, 126-152.
3. Aysan, Y. ve Oliver, P. (1987). Housing and Culture after Earthquakes: A guide for future policy making on housing in seismic areas, Oxford: Oxford polytechnic.
4. Blandy, S. ve Lister, D. (2005). Gated communities:(ne) gating community development? Housing studies, 20, 287-301.
5. Carrasco, S., Ochiai, C. ve Okazaki, K. (2017) Residential satisfaction and housing modifications. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 8(2), 175-189.
6. Coburn, A. ve Spence, R. (2002). Earthquake protection, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
7. Colantonio, A. ve Dixon, T. (2011). Urban regeneration and social sustainability: Best practice from European cities: John Wiley & Sons.
8. Franscescato, G., Wiedemann, S. ve Anderson, J. R. (1987). Residential Satisfaction. In W. van Vliet vd. (Eds.), Housing and neighbourhoods. Theoretical and empirical contributions, 43–58. New York/ London: Greenwood Press.

9. Gomaa, B. ve Sakr, N. (2015). Social Sustainability; Maintenance of Socio-Cultural Characteristics: A Case Study of El-Raml Station. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 4, 203-303.
10. Hayles, C.S. (2010). An examination of decision making in post disaster housing reconstruction. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 1, 103-122.
11. Holden, M. (2012). Urban policy engagement with social sustainability in metro Vancouver. Urban Studies, 49, 527-542.
12. Hutchins, M.J. ve Sutherland, J.W. (2008). An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1688-1698.
13. Ingirige, B., Jones, K. ve Keraminiyage K. (2013). Achieving success in post-disaster resettlement programmes through better coordination between spatial and socio-economic/cultural factors. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 4, 352-372.
14. Jamshed, A. Rana I.A. ve McMillan J.M. (2019). Building community resilience in post-disaster resettlement in Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 10 (4), 301-315.
15. Johnson, C. (2007). Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing after disasters: 1999 earthquakes in Turkey. Habitat international, 31, 36-52.
16. Juan, Y.K., Hsing, N.P. ve Hsu Y.H. (2019). Applying the Kano two-dimensional model and quality function deployment to develop sustainable planning strategies for public housing in Taiwan. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 34, 265-282.
17. Kalafat, D., Güneş, Y. ve Arpat E. (2003). May 1, 2003 Bingöl earthquake. In: Institute KOaER (ed). İstanbul: Boğaziçi University.
18. Kowaltowski, D.C., Muianga, E.A.D. ve Granja, A.D. (2019). A critical analysis of research of a mass-housing programme. Building Research & Information, 47, 716-733.
19. Kürüm Varolgüneş, F. (2020). Evaluation of vernacular and new housing indoor comfort conditions in cold climate –a field survey in eastern Turkey, International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 13 (2), 207-226.
20. Kürüm Varolgüneş F. (2020). Post-disaster permanent housing: the case of the 2003 Bingöl earthquake in Turkey. Disaster Prevention and Management.
21. Kürüm Varolgüneş F. (2021). Success factors for post‐disaster permanent housing: example of Turkish Earthquakes. The Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 11 (1) , 115-130.
22. Littig, B. ve Griessler, E. (2005). Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. International journal of sustainable development, 8, 65-79.
23. Missimer, M. Robèrt, K.H. ve Broman, G. (2017). A strategic approach to social sustainability–Part 2: a principle- based definition. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 42-52.
24. Moldan, B., Janoušková, S. ve Hák, T. (2012). How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets. Ecological Indicators, 17, 4-13.
25. Ortiz, O., Castells, F. ve Sonnemann, G., (2009). Sustainability in the construction industry: A review of recent developments based on LCA. Construction and building materials, 23, 28-39.
26. Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form: towards a man—environment approach to urban form and design, Elsevier:Oxford.
27. Roitman, S. (2010). Gated communities: definitions, causes and consequences. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers.Urban Design and Planning, 163, 31-38.
28. Sachs, I. (1999). Social sustainability and whole development: exploring the dimension of Sustainable Development in E. Becker and Th. Jahn (Eds) Sustainability and the Social Sciences. UNESCO & ISOE:New York.
29. Shirazi, M.R. ve Keivani, R. (2019). The triad of social sustainability: Defining and measuring social sustainability of urban neighbourhoods. Urban Research & Practice, 12, 448-471.
30. Singhaputtangkul, N., Low, S.P. ve Teo, A.L. (2013). Knowledge-based decision support system quality function deployment (KBDSS-QFD) tool for assessment of building envelopes. Automation in Construction, 35, 314-328.
31. Speare, A. (1974). Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility. Demography, 11, 173-188.
32. Tas, N., Cosgun, N. ve 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, 3418-3431.
33. Todd, J.A., Crawley, D. ve Geissler, S. (2001). Comparative assessment of environmental performance tools and the role of the Green Building Challenge. Building Research & Information, 29, 324-335.
34. Vallance, S., Perkins, H.C. ve Dixon, J.E. (2011). What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum, 42, 342-348.
35. WCDE. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future. 10 Şubat 2018 tarihinde https://www.sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ adresinden erişildi.
36. Weingaertner, C. ve Moberg, Å. (2014). Exploring social sustainability: Learning from perspectives on urban development and companies and products. Sustainable Development, 22, 122-133.
37. Williams, K. ve Dair, C. (2007). What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments. Sustainable development, 15, 135-147.
38. Woodcraft, S. (2015). Understanding and measuring social sustainability. Journal of Urban Regeneration & Renewal, 8, 133-144.
39. Woodcraft, S. ve Dixon, T. (2013). Creating strong communities–measuring social sustainability in new housing development. Town and Country Planning Association, 82, 473-480.
40. Zimmermann, M., Althaus H.J. ve Haas, A. (2005). Benchmarks for sustainable construction: A contribution to develop a standard. Energy and Buildings, 37, 1147-1157.