Self-Identification Phenomenon in A Temporary Shelter Unit After A Disaster: AFAD Containers

Year 2024, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 987 - 1014, 26.12.2024

Betül İrem Tarakçı , İsmail Emre Kavut

https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.1553487

Abstract

Container homes used to meet the shelter needs of disaster victims in the post-disaster period are often foreign environments, which can create psychological challenges. The process of individuals adapting to a space begins with personalization. This study examines the physical and psychosocial needs of disaster victims through the 'phenomenon of personalization.' Implementing different forms of personalization to overcome alienation from the space can facilitate the acceptance process by making the environment familiar. The research addresses the personalization processes of disaster victims in containers and their user requirements, collecting data through observations and semi-structured interviews in the AFAD container city in İskenderun. As a result, the personalization that disaster victims engage in within the container contributes to psychological, social, and physical recovery processes. Therefore, it is essential that post-disaster shelter spaces are designed to allow for personalization and adopt a user-centered approach.

Keywords

Self-identification, phenomenon of self-identification, disaster, temporary shelter, AFAD containers

Thanks

This article is based on the ongoing PhD Dissertation entitled 'Determining Design and Evaluation Parameters for Temporary Housing Units After Disasters: Improvement-Based Recommendations,'by Betül İrem TARAKÇI under the supervision of Assoc. Prof. İsmail Emre KAVUT at Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Department of Interior Architecture. Ethics committee approval for the study was obtained with the decision numbered 11/7 dated May 10, 2024, from the Administrative Board of the Institute of Science, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University.

Afet Sonrası Geçici Barınma Biriminde Kendileme Olgusu: AFAD Konteynerları

Abstract

Afet sonrası dönemde afetzedelerin barınma ihtiyacını karşılamak için kullanılan konteyner evler, genellikle yabancı mekanlardır ve bu durum psikolojik zorluklar yaratmaktadır. İnsanların bir mekâna alışması, kendileme süreciyle başlar. Bu çalışma, afetzedelerin fiziksel ve psiko-sosyal gereksinimlerini ‘kendileme olgusu’ üzerinden incelemektedir. Mekâna yabancılaşmayı aşmak için farklı kendileme biçimlerinin uygulanması, mekanın tanıdık hale gelmesini sağlayarak kabullenme sürecini hızlandırabilir. Araştırma, afetzedelerin konteynerde kendileme süreçlerini ve kullanıcı gereksinimlerini ele almakta; İskenderun'daki AFAD konteyner kenti üzerinde gözlem ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelerle veri toplamaktadır. Sonuç olarak, afetzedelerin konteynerde yaptığı kendileme, psikolojik, sosyal ve fiziksel iyileşme süreçlerine katkı sağlamaktadır. Bu nedenle, afet sonrası barınma mekânlarının, kendilemeye olanak tanıyacak şekilde tasarlanması ve kullanıcı odaklı bir yaklaşım benimsenmesi önemlidir.

Keywords

Kendileme, kendileme olgusu, afet, geçici barınma, afad konteynerları

References

• Alsibaai, L., & Özcan, U. (2022). Changes in user requirements in architecture and their reflections on building programs. International Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences (IJSHS), 6(2), 139-165.
• Altman, I., & Zube, H. E. (1989). Public places and spaces. New York: Plenum Press.
• Armağan, B. (1997). Examining user satisfaction in high-rise housing applications from the perspective of psycho-social requirements. Master's thesis, Istanbul Technical University Institute of Science, 85 p., Istanbul.
• Atasoy, A. (1973). Developing housing design in response to changing needs through evaluation of existing housing. ITU Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul.
• Ateş, M. (1988). A study on approaches for flexibility in mass housing. Master's thesis, ITU Institute of Science, Istanbul.
• Aubert-Gamet, V. (1997). Twisting servicescapes: Diversion of the physical environment in a re-appropriation process. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(1), 26-41.
• Ayataç, H., & Güney, Y. İ. (2016). Evaluating user experiences in temporary housing solutions after disasters. ITU Journal/a, 15(1).
• Bayazıt, N. (1982). Participation in planning and designing. ITU Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul.
• Benages-Albert, M., Di Masso, A., Porcel, S., Pol, E., & Vall-casas, P. (2015). Revisiting the appropriation of space in metropolitan river corridors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 1-15.
• Bilgin, N. (1990). From physical space to human space. Architecture Journal, 28(3), 62-65.
• Bilgin, N., (1991). Things and People. Gündoğan Yayınları, Ankara.
• Bilgin, N. (1997). Place identity and urban citizenship. In Politics and Human (pp. 102-110). Istanbul: Bağlam Publishing.
• Bilgin, N., (2011). Things and People, Istanbul, Gündoğan Yayınları, 2. Basım.
• Bonnes, M., & Secchiaroli, G. (1995). Environmental psychology: A psycho-social introduction. London: Sage Publications.
• Bonnin, G. (2006). Physical environment and service experience: An appropriation-based model. Journal of Services Research, 6, Special Issue, 45-65.
• Brooker, G., & Stone, S. (2011). What is interior design? Istanbul: Yem Publications.
• Brunson, L., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Resident appropriation of defensible space in public housing: Implications for safety and community. Environment and Behavior, 33(5), 626-652.
• Buğday, H. A. (1991). An architectural design research aimed at meeting different user requirements in industrialized mass housing. Master's thesis, Istanbul: Istanbul Technical University Institute of Science. Access Address (12.12.2019): https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp
• Cilliers, J. E., Timmermans, W., den Goorbergh, F. V., & Slijkhuis, J. (2015). Green place-making in practice: From temporary spaces to permanent places. Journal of Urban Design, 20(3), 349–366.
• Cresswell, T., 2014. Place: An Introduction, John Wiley & Sons.
• Çavdar, A., & Çabuk, A. (2016). The personalization process in temporary housing areas: An example of a tent city established after the earthquake. Megaron, 11(1).
• Doan, P. L., & Yamazaki, J. (2020). Sense of place in temporary housing after natural disasters. Disasters, 44(2), 373-393.
• Dovey, K. (1985). The quest for authenticity and the replication of environmental meaning. In Dwelling, place and environment (pp. 33- 49).
• Dönmez, Y., Özyavuz, M., & Gökyer, E. (2015). Determining the green space conditions of housing and site areas in the city of Safranbolu. Inönü University Journal of Art and Design, 5(11), 1-12.
• Duruel, M. (2023). The role of civil society organizations in disaster management: The example of the February 6 earthquake in Hatay. International Journal of Political Studies, 9(2), 1-17.
• Ertaş Beşir, Ş., & Dereci, Ş. (2021). Risks Posed by Non-Structural Elements in Residential Interiors During an Earthquake and Preventive Measures, International Social Mentality and Researcher Thinkers Journal, (Issn:2630-631X) 7(42): 350- 360.
• Esteban-Guitart, M. (2014). Appropriation. In T. Teo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of critical psychology (pp. 128-132). New York, US: Springer.
• Feldman, R. M., & Stall, S. (2004). The dignity of resistance: Women residents’ activism in Chicago public housing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Fischer, G. N. (1981). La psychosociologie de l’espace. Paris: PUF.
• Göregenli, M. (2021). Environmental psychology: Human-space relationships. Istanbul: Bilgi University Publications.
• Graumann, C. F. (1976). The concept of appropriation (Aneignung) and modes of appropriation of space. In P. Korosec-Serfaty (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Architectural Psychology Conference (pp. 113-125). Strasbourg, France: Louis Pasteur University.
• Graumann, C. F. (2002). The phenomenological approach to people- environment studies. In R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 95-113). New York, US: John Wiley & Sons.
• Gül, B. (1993). Solving the user-environment adaptation problem during the design process. Master's thesis, Istanbul: Istanbul Technical University Institute of Science. Access Address (12.12.2019): https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp
• Günal, B. (2006). Examining the psycho-social quality in housing within the context of the human-space communication model (PhD thesis), Istanbul Technical University Institute of Science, Istanbul.
• Gür, Ö.Ş. (1996). Spatial organization. Trabzon: Gür Publishing.
• Güremen, L. (2016). Amasya case in a research on the effect of user perception of housing and residential areas on satisfaction and preference behavior. Technological Applied Sciences, 11(2), 24-64.
• Henk de Haan. (2005). Social and material appropriation of neighborhood space: Collective space and resistance in a Dutch urban community.
• Karasu, M. (2021). The relationship between temporal experience and spatial personalization. PhD thesis, Istanbul University Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul. Access Address (12.12.2019): https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp
• Kärrholm, M. (2005). Territorial complexity in public places: A study of territorial production at three squares in Lund. Nordisk Arkitekturforskning, 99-114.
• Kärrholm, M. (2007). A conceptual discussion of territoriality, materiality, and the everyday life of public space. Space and Culture, 10(4), 437-453.
• Korosec-Serfaty, P. (1976). In P. Korosec-Serfaty (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Architectural Psychology Conference. Strasbourg, France: Louis Pasteur University.
• Korosec-Serfaty, P. (1985). Experience and use of the dwelling. In I. Altman & C. M. Werner (Eds.), Home environments (pp. 65-87). New York, US: Plenum Press.
• Korur, S., Sayın, S., Oğuzalp, E., & Korkmaz, S. (2006). The impact of facade interventions based on user requirements on the quality of the physical environment in housing. Selçuk University Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology, 21(3), 177-190.
• Kyle, G., & Chick, G. (2009). The social construction of a sense of place. Leisure Sciences, 29(3), 2009-225.
• Lara-Hernandez, J. A. (2020). General introduction. In A. Melis, J. A. Lara- Hernandez, & J. Thompson (Eds.), Temporary appropriation in cities: Human spatialization in public spaces and community resilience (pp. 1-9). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
• Lefebvre, H. (1995). The production of space (D. Nicholson Smith, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Marx, K. (1893/1994). Selected writings (L. H. Simon, Ed.). Indianapolis, IN, US: Hackett Publishing.
• Marx, K. (2013). 1844 manuscripts (M. Belge, Trans.). Istanbul: Birikim Publications.
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation.
• Mehta, V. (2013). The street: A quintessential social public space. Florence Production Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devon, UK.
• Modh, B. (1998). Appropriating everyday space—An important aspect in the development of city culture. In L. Nystroöm (Ed.), City & culture: Urban sustainability and cultural processes (pp. 13-17). Stockholm, Sweden.
• Morval, J., & Judge, P. (2000). Motivation at work and space appropriation. In B. Gangloff (Ed.), Professional competencies: Descriptive, measurement, and development (pp. 127-134). Paris, France: L'Harmattan.
• Moser, G., Ratiu, E., & Fleury-Bahi, G. (2002). Appropriation and interpersonal relationships: From dwelling to city through the neighborhood. Environment and Behavior, 34(1), 122-136.
• Noorian, T. (2009). Personalization of space in office environments. Master's thesis, Eastern Mediterranean University, September 2009, Gazimağusa, North Cyprus.
• Özdemir, İ. (1994). The concept of spatial organization in evaluating architectural space: Living spaces in housing. PhD thesis, KTU Institute of Science, Trabzon. Access Address (12.12.2019): https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp
• Özkan, D. G. (2017). The effects of campus open space environmental characteristics on place attachment: KTU Kanuni Campus. PhD thesis, Karadeniz Technical University Institute of Science, Trabzon. Access Address (12.12.2019): https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp
• Perker, S. Z., & Akıncıtürk, N. (2011). Physical changes in traditional houses: Three case studies in Bursa. Uludağ University Journal of Engineering and Architecture Faculty, 16(1).
• Pol, E. (2002). The theoretical background of the city-identity sustainability network. Environment and Behavior, 34(1), 8-25.
• Rioux, L. (2004). Types of university sites and space appropriation. Canadian Psychology, 45(1), 103-110.
• Rioux, L., Scrima, F., & Werner, C. M. (2017). Space appropriation and place attachment: University students create places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 50, 60-68.
• Seamon, D. (1980). Body-subject, time-space routines, and place- ballets. In The human experience of space and place (pp. 148-165).
• Şahiner Tufan, A. (2019). Examining personalization forms in nursing homes: The Trabzon example. Master's thesis, Karadeniz Technical University Institute of Science, Trabzon.
• Tarakçı, B.İ. (2023). Personel Archive.
• Tarakçı, B.İ. (2024). Personel Archive.
• Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN, US: University of Minnesota.
• Turgut, H. (2014). User experiences in temporary housing areas after disasters. Megaron, 9(1), 23-40.
• Twigger, C. L., & Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 205-220.
• Uzunoğlu, K., & Özer, H. (2014). Evaluation of mass housing in the pre- design phase. Megaron, 9(3), 167-189.
• Vidal, T., Valera, S., & Peró, M. (2010). Place attachment, place identity and residential mobility in undergraduate students. Psyecology, 1(3), 353-369.
• Wells, M. M. (2000). Office clutter or meaningful personal displays: The role of office personalization in employee and organizational well- being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 239-255.
• Wineman, J., & Peponis, J. (2010). Constructing spatial meaning: Spatial affordances in museum design. Environment and Behavior, 42(1), 86- 109.