Afetlere Dirençli Mahalle Tasarımı Stüdyosundan Çıkarılan Dersler

Öz

Bu çalışma, Düzce Üniversitesi Mimarlık Bölümü 2022-2023 Bahar Yarıyılı'nda yürütülen MMR302 Mimari Tasarım III stüdyosunda öğrenciler tarafından geliştirilen “Afetlere Dirençli Komşuluk Ünitesi” temalı projeleri incelemektedir. Araştırmanın amacı, mimarlık eğitiminde afetlere dirençlilik kavramının nasıl işlendiğini ve bu kavramın öğrenci projelerinde nasıl mekânsal çözümlere dönüştürüldüğünü değerlendirmektir. Çalışmada, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden içerik analizi tekniği kullanılarak, öğrencilerin proje sunumları, çizimleri, raporları ve jüri değerlendirme notları analiz edilmiştir. Değerlendirmeler kentsel ölçek ve mimari ölçek olarak ikiye ayrılmıştır. İçerik analizinde, afet ve dirençlilik tanımları, kullanılan kavramlar, yer seçimi ve tehlike tanımı, mekânsal çözümler ana konularında incelenmiştir. Sonucunda, öğrencilerin dirençlilik kavramını mekânsal tasarımlarına entegre etme konusunda önemli bir farkındalık geliştirdikleri gözlemlenmiştir. Özellikle yeşil ve mavi altyapı kullanımı, modüler ve esnek tasarım yaklaşımları, topluluk katılımını teşvik eden mekânlar ve alternatif ulaşım stratejileri gibi konularda yaratıcı çözümler ürettikleri belirlenmiştir. Bu bulgular, mimarlık eğitiminde teorik bilgilerin pratik uygulamalarla pekiştirilmesinin önemini ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, disiplinlerarası yaklaşımların ve topluluk katılımının teşvik edilmesi, öğrencilerin daha kapsamlı ve sürdürülebilir çözümler geliştirmelerine katkı sağlamaktadır. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma, mimarlık eğitiminde afetlere dirençlilik kavramının önemini vurgulamakta ve bu kavramın tasarım stüdyolarında etkin bir şekilde işlenmesinin gerekliliğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mahalle Tasarımı
• Mimari Stüdyo
• Afetler
• Dirençlilik

Lessons Taken from Disaster-Resilient Neighbourhood Design Studio

Öz

This study examines the "Disaster Resilient Neighborhood Unit" themed projects developed by the students in MMR302 Architectural Design III studio, conducted in the Spring Semester of 2022-2023 at Düzce University, Department of Architecture. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the manner in which the concept of disaster resilience is processed in the context of architectural education and how this concept is transformed into spatial solutions in student projects. In the present study, a content analysis technique, a qualitative research method, was utilized to systematically examine a comprehensive array of student project-related documentation, including presentations, drawings, reports, and jury evaluation notes. The evaluations were divided into two categories: urban scale and architectural scale. In the content analysis, the following main topics were examined: definitions of disaster and resilience, concepts used, site selection, and hazard definition. Spatial solutions were also analyzed. Consequently, it was observed that the students developed a significant awareness in integrating the concept of resilience into their spatial designs. It was determined that they produced creative solutions on issues such as the use of green and blue infrastructure, modular and flexible design approaches, spaces that encourage community participation, and alternative transportation strategies. These findings underscore the significance of integrating theoretical knowledge with practical applications in architectural education. Furthermore, the promotion of interdisciplinary approaches and community participation has been demonstrated to facilitate the development of more comprehensive and sustainable solutions. Consequently, this study underscores the significance of disaster resilience in architectural education and highlights the imperative for its effective integration into design studios.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Disasters
• Resilience
• Neighborhood Design
• Architectural Studio

Kaynakça

1. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251–1262. https://doi.org/10.2307/2641280
2. Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., & Abel, N. (2001). From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4(8), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9
3. Davoudi, S. (2012). Resilience: A bridging concept or a dead end? Planning Theory & Practice, 13(2), 299–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2012.677124
4. Díaz, M. B., León, J. S., Laclabere Arenas, S., Vicuña, M., Ovalles, L., & Mazereeuw, M. S. (2025). Design research for disaster and risk mitigation: The FOVI international project as a case study in architectural education. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-01-2025-0021
5. Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability, and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), Article 20. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/
6. Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Barton, D. N. (2013). Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics, 86, 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019
7. Hakgüder, S. (2025). Developing a new sustainable architecture design studio course: Connecting students to nature case study. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences (EPESS), 42, 81–98. https://doi.org/10.55549/epess.913
8. Holling, C. S. (1987). Simplifying the complex: The paradigms of ecological function and structure. European Journal of Operational Research, 30(2), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(87)90091-9

9. Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4(5), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5
10. ICLEI. (2015). Resilient cities report 2015: ICLEI global report on urban resilience. ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability.
11. https://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/RC2015__Congress_Report__Final.pdf
12. Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann, S., Davis, M., Artmann, M., ... & Bonn, A. (2016). Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: Perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology and Society, 21(2), Article 39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239
13. Kahraman, S., Polat, E., & Korkmazyürek, B. (2022). Salgın ve afete yönelik dirençlilik eylem planlaması: Dirençli mahalleler. Kent Akademisi Dergisi, 15(4), 1938–1958. https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.1110519
14. Lu, P., Stead, D., & Meijer, M. (2013). Resilience in urban planning: A comparative analysis of spatial planning practices. Cities, 32, 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.02.002
15. Maclean, K., Cuthill, M., & Ross, H. (2014). Six attributes of social resilience. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(1), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.752587
16. Merriam, S. B. (2023). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (S. Turan, Çev. Ed.). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
17. Merrow, M., Barton, H., Grant, M., & Guise, R. (2016). Planning for resilience: A research perspective. Urban Studies, 53(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014566364
18. Mileti, D. S. (1999). Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Press.
19. Olaoye, G. O., Onamade, A. O., Chukwuka, O. P., & Adeola, A. (2023). Transforming global architectural training curriculum: Integrating disaster mitigation and sustainable reconstruction. Lead City University Postgraduate Multidisciplinary Serial, Series 1.
20. Özyetgin Altun, A. (2023). Review of the literature on risk communication methods in the context of natural disaster risks and recommendations for urban planning. In M. Çakır & H. Gözlükaya (Eds.), Architectural Sciences and Urban/Environmental Studies-II (pp. 49–78). İKSAD Yayıncılık.
21. Özyetgin Altun, A., & Altun, F. (2025). Urban-scale holistic physical risk assessment model based on multi-hazard types. Journal of The Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University. https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.1395879
22. Özyetgin Altun, A., & Tezer, A. (2019). A preliminary study on defining urban resilience for urban planning: The case of Sultanbeyli, Istanbul. Tasarım Kuram, 15(28), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.14744/tasarimkuram.2019.07108
23. Potur, A. A., & Metin, H. (2021). Mimarlık eğitiminde depremin yeri ve depremin eğitsel boyutu: Küresel gündem ve Türkiye bağlamı üzerine bir değerlendirme. Megaron, 16(2), 223–254. https://doi.org/10.14744/MEGARON.2020.94210
24. Roaf, S. (2010). Adapting buildings and cities for climate change: A 21st century survival guide (2nd ed.). Routledge.
25. Ryosuke, O., & Kazuma, Sh. (2024). Teaching sustainability in architecture through collaborative online international learning. An-Najah University Journal for Research - A (Natural Sciences), 38(2), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.35552/anujr.a.38.2.2204
26. Sharifi, A. (2018). Resilient urban forms: A macro-scale analysis. Cities, 83, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.11.023
27. Sharifi, A., & Yamagata, Y. (2018). Principles and criteria for assessing urban energy resilience: A literature review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 91, 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.041
28. Soofi, T. (2016). Achieving urban resilience through urban design and planning principles (Master’s dissertation). Oxford Brookes University, Department of Planning.
29. Tapsuwan, S., Mathot, C., Walker, I., & Barnett, G. (2018). Preferences for sustainable, liveable, and resilient neighbourhoods and homes: A case of Canberra, Australia. Sustainable Cities and Society, 37, 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.11.012
30. Tasan-Kok, T., van den Hurk, M., & Bolt, G. (2013). Resilience thinking in urban planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 14(3), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2013.812944
31. Topal, E., & Tatar, E. (2023). Kentsel dirençlilik üzerine mekân odaklı araştırmalar. Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications, 8(Special Issue), 547–566. https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.1333803
32. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030
33. Von Borcke, M. (2009). Sustainable urbanism and urban resilience: A comparative study of urban development projects in Europe. In Y. Yamagata & H. Maruyama (Eds.), Urban resilience and sustainability (pp. 89–112). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-99479-9_7
34. World Bank (WB). (2015). The World Bank report on urban resilience and risk reduction strategies. World Bank Publications.