Afet Sonrası Yapılanmada Konvansiyonel ve İleri Teknolojilerin Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Bu çalışma, afet sonrası yeniden yapılanma süreçlerinde konvansiyonel yapım yöntemleri ile parametrik tasarım ve 3B baskı gibi yeni nesil dijital teknolojilerin karşılaştırmalı analizini sunmaktadır. Araştırmanın temel amacı, geleneksel yöntemler ile dijital teknolojilerin güçlü ve zayıf yönlerini değerlendirmek, kullanıcı odaklı tasarımın afet sonrası planlamaya entegrasyonunu analiz etmektir. Nitel araştırma metodolojisi kullanılan çalışma, ayrıca her iki yaklaşımın en etkili yönlerini birleştiren hibrit modellerin geliştirilmesine katkı sağlamayı ve önerilen stratejileri kullanıcı entegrasyonu, uygulama süreci, üretim uyarlanabilirliği ve kullanıcı merkezli esnek tasarım paradigması kriterleri açılarından değerlendirmektedir. Bulgular, teknoloji odaklı yaklaşımların kullanıcı katılımını artırdığını, yerel ihtiyaçlara daha duyarlı olduğunu ve çevresel sürdürülebilirliği desteklediğini göstermektedir; ancak bu yaklaşımlar yüksek maliyet ve teknik uzmanlık gereksinimi gibi sınırlılıklar da içermektedir. Geleneksel yöntemler hızlı ve geniş ölçekli müdahale avantajı sunsa da değişen ihtiyaçları karşılamakta yetersiz kalmaktadır. Afet sonrası yeniden yapılanmada yalnızca tek bir yaklaşıma dayalı çözümler yerine, her iki paradigmanın güçlü yönlerini birleştiren hibrit stratejilerin geliştirilmesi önerilmektedir. Kullanıcı merkezli, esnek ve sürdürülebilir tasarım stratejilerinin benimsenmesi, fiziksel çevrenin yanı sıra sosyal ve kültürel yapının da dirençli hâle gelmesine katkı sağlayacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Afet sonrası yeniden yapılanma
• Konvensiyonel yapılanma
• Kullanıcı odaklı tasarım
• Parametrik tasarım
• 3B teknolojisi

The Comparison of Conventional and Advanced Technologies in Post-Disaster Reconstruction

Abstract

This study presents a comparative analysis of conventional methods and new-generation digital technologies, such as parametric design and 3D printing, in post-disaster reconstruction processes. The principal objective of this study is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of traditional methods and digital technologies, and to examine the integration of user-centered design into post-disaster planning. Employing a qualitative research methodology, the study also aims to contribute to the development of hybrid models that combine the most effective aspects of both approaches and evaluate the proposed strategies in terms of user integration, implementation processes, production adaptability, and user-centered flexible design paradigm criteria. The findings indicate that technology-oriented approaches enhance user participation, demonstrate greater responsiveness to local needs, support environmental sustainability; however, these approaches are also associated with certain limitations notably high costs and the requirements for technical expertise. While traditional methods offer advantages for rapid and large-scale interventions, they prove inadequate in addressing evolving needs. The research recommends developing hybrid strategies that integrate the strengths of both paradigms rather than solutions based solely on a single approach to reconstruction. The adoption of user-centered, flexible, and sustainable design strategies will contribute to enhancing the resilience of not only the physical environment but also social and cultural fabric.

Keywords

• Post-disaster reconstruction
• User-centered design
• Parametric design
• 3D printing technology

Kaynakça

1. 3dprint.com (2015, July 28). Branch technology 3d prints building walls with world’s largest freeform 3d printer – Launches 3d printed home competition. 17 Mart 2025 tarihinde https://3dprint.com/85215/branch-3d-printed-walls/ adresinden alınmıştır.
2. Adlin, T., & Pruitt, J. (2008). Putting personas to work: Using data-driven personas to focus product planning, design and development. In A. Sears & J. A. Jacko (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook (pp. 991–1016). Taylor & Francis.
3. Aljassmi, H., Najjar, F., & Mourad, A.-H. (2018). Large-Scale 3D Printing: The Way Forward. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 324 012088. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/324/1/012088
4. Ashmore, J., Ferrer, C., & Serra, I. (2010). The IFRC shelter kit. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
5. Aslan, Z., Demiröz, K., & Demiröz Yıldırım, S. (2025). An examination of temporary shelter units in terms of minimum standards: The case of the Kahramanmaraş Earthquake. Sustainability, 17(8), 3587. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083587
6. Barakat, S. (2003). Housing reconstruction after conflict and disaster. Humanitarian Practice Network, Overseas Development Institute. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/95619/networkpaper043.pdf
7. Bari, L. F., Ahmed, I., Ahamed, R., Zihan, T. A., Sharmin, S., Pranto, A. H., & Islam, M. R. (2023). Potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) in disaster risk and emergency health management: A critical appraisal on environmental health. Environmental Health Insights, 17, 11786302231217808. https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302231217808
8. Batikha, M., Jotangia, R., Baaj, M.Y., & Mousleh, I. (2022). 3D concrete printing for sustainable and economical construction: A comparative study. Automation in Construction, 134, 104087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.104087

9. Bazli, M., Ashrafi, H., Rajabipour, A., & Kutay, C. (2023). 3D printing for remote housing: Benefits and challenges. Automation in Construction, 148, 104772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104772
10. Beaudouin-Lafon, M., & Mackay, W. E. (2008). Prototyping tools and techniques. In A. Sears & J. A. Jacko (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook (pp. 1017–1039). Taylor & Francis.
11. Benson, C., & Clay, E. J. (2004). Understanding the economic and financial impacts of natural disasters (Disaster Risk Management Series No. 4). World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/bca694fe-3880-583e-a829-f3f456b5f362/content
12. Brandner, R., Flatscher, G., Ringhofer, A., Schickhofer, G., & Thiel, A. (2016). Cross laminated timber (CLT): Overview and development. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products, 74, 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-015-0999-5
13. Brown, L. (Ed.). (1993). The new shorter Oxford English dictionary, on historical principles. Clarendon Press.
14. Canavan, C., & Ide, T. (2024). Contention, cooperation, and context: A systematic review of research on disasters and political conflicts. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 108, 104558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104558
15. Cao, K., Lan, M., Wang, H., Li, Y., & Liu, X. (2023). The thermal environment and thermal comfort of disaster relief tents in high-temperature composite environment. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 50, 103453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2023.103453
16. Cesaretti, G., Dini, E., De Kestelier, X., Colla, V., & Pambaguian, L. (2014). Building components for an outpost on the lunar soil by means of a novel 3D printing technology. Acta Astronautica, 93, 430–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.07.034
17. Davidson, C. H., Johnson, C., Lizarralde, G., Dikmen, N., & Sliwinski, A. (2007). Truths and myths about community participation in post-disaster housing projects. Habitat International, 31(1), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2006.08.003
18. Dikmen, N., & Elias-Ozkan, S. T. (2016). Housing after disaster: A post occupancy evaluation of a reconstruction project. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 19, 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.08.020
19. Ersoy, Z. (2010). Mimari tasarımda "kullanıcı odaklı" süreçler. Mimarlık Dergisi, 351, 68–72.
20. Fekete, A., & Hufschmidt, G. (2014). From application to evaluation: Addressing the usefulness of resilience and vulnerability. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 5(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-014-0007-4
21. Félix, D., Branco, J. M., & Feio, A. (2013). Temporary housing after disasters: A state of the art survey. Habitat International, 40, 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.03.006
22. Frascara, J. (2005). People-centered design: Complexities and uncertainties. In J. Frascara (Ed.), Design and the social sciences: Making connections (pp. 33–39). Taylor & Francis.
23. Ghanbarzadeh Ghomi, S., Wedawatta, G., Ginige, K., & Ingirige, B. (2021). Living-transforming disaster relief shelter: a conceptual approach for sustainable post-disaster housing. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 11, 687–704.
24. Global Electricity Initiative. (2022). Microgrids for community resilience. 20 Mart 2025 tarihinde https://www.globalelectricity.org/microgrids-for-community-resilience adresinden alınmıştır.
25. Hager, I., Golonka, A., & Putanowicz, R. (2016). 3D printing of buildings and building components as the future of sustainable construction? Procedia Engineering, 151, 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.07.357 Haigh, R., & Amaratunga, D. (2010). An integrative review of the built environment discipline’s role in the development of society’s resilience to disasters. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 1(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/17595901011026454
26. ICON. (t.y.). ICON and New Story/ World’s First 3D-printed community of homes. 28 Eylül 2025 tarihinde https://www.iconbuild.com/media-gallery/icon-and-new-story-worlds-first-3d-printedcommunity-of-homes adresinden alınmıştır.
27. Institute for Energy Justice. (2021). Community microgrids: Powering resilience in frontline & disaster-impacted communities. https://iejusa.org/community-microgrids-powering-resilience-in-frontline-disaster-impacted-communities National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2023). A menu for enhancing local energy resilience. https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/84493.pdf International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2011). Transitional shelters – Eight designs. https://www.humanitarianlibrary.org/sites/default/files/2014/02/900300-transitional_shelters-eight_designs-en-lr.pdf IPCC. (2023). Climate change 2023: The physical science basis. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf Johnson, C. (2007a). Strategic planning for post-disaster temporary housing. Disasters, 31(4), 435–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2007.01018.x
28. Johnson, C. (2007b). Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing after disasters: 1999 earthquakes in Turkey. Habitat International, 31(1), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2006.03.002 Johnson, C. (2011). Creating an enabling environment for reducing disaster risk: Recent experience of regulatory frameworks for land, planning and building in low and middle-income countries. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction.
29. Joyce, K. E., Belliss, S. E., Samsonov, S. V., McNeill, S. J., & Glassey, P. J. (2009). A review of the status of satellite remote sensing and image processing techniques for mapping natural hazards and disasters. Progress in Physical Geography, 33(2), 183–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133309339563 Kadıoğlu, M. (2011). Afet yönetimi: Beklenilmeyeni beklemek, en kötüsünü yönetmek (1. baskı). Marmara Belediyeler Birliği.
30. Kantaros, A. (2024). Leveraging 3D printing for resilient disaster management. Smart Cities, 7(6), 143. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7060143
31. Karmod. (2023). Hatay Orman İşletmesi prefabrik konut projesi. 11 Şubat 2025 tarihinde https://www.karmod.com/projeler/hatay-orman-isletme-konut-projesi/ adresinden alınmıştır.
32. Kasım, Y. N. (2024, Kasım 17). Deprem bölgesinde 101 bin konut hak sahiplerine teslim edildi. Anadolu Ajansı. 15 Şubat 2025 tarihinde https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/gundem/deprem-bolgesinde-101-bin-konut-hak-sahiplerine-teslim-edildi/3364945 adresinden alınmıştır.
33. Kaszyńska, M., Skibicki, S., & Hoffmann, M. (2020). 3D concrete printing for sustainable construction. Energies, 13(23), 6351. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13236351
34. Keating, S. J., Leland, J. C., Cai, L., & Oxman, N. (2017). Toward site-specific and self-sufficient robotic fabrication on architectural scales. Science Robotics, 2(5), eaam8986. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aam8986
35. Kurtoğlu, D. & İnceoğlu, M. (2022). Mimari mekanda bir araştırma metodolojisi olarak sanal gerçeklik teknolojisi. In M. Dal & G. Sandal Erzurumlu (Eds.), In Mimarlık, Planlama ve Tasarımda Güncel Araştırmalar – 2022. Gece Kitaplığı.
36. Labonnote, N., Rønnquist, A., Manum, B., & Rüther, P. (2016). Additive construction: State-of-the-art, challenges and opportunities. Automation in Construction, 72(3), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.08.026
37. Lagap, U., Ghaffarian, S., Gelinas-Gagne, S., Jilma, J., Liu, Z., & Luo, Z. (2025). Towards reliable deep learning for post-disaster damage assessment: An XAI-based evaluation. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105839
38. Li, V. C. (2003). On engineered cementitious composites (ECC): A review of the material and its applications. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 1(3), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.1.215
39. Li, V. C. (2011). Engineered cementitious composites (ECC): Material, structural, and durability performance. In Concrete construction engineering handbook (pp. 46–87). CRC Press.
40. Lindell, M. K. (2013). Recovery and reconstruction after disaster. In P. T. Bobrowsky (Ed.), Encyclopedia of natural hazards (pp. 812–824). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4399-4_285
41. Linner, T., & Bock, T. (2012). Evolution of large-scale industrialisation and service innovation in Japanese prefabrication industry. Construction Innovation, 12(2), 156-178. https://doi.org/10.1108/14714171211215921
42. López-López, D., Serrano-Jiménez, A., Gavilanes, J., Ventura-Blanch, F., Barrios-Padura, Á., & Díaz-López, C. (2023). A study on the parametric design parameters that influence environmental ergonomics and sustainability. Sustainability, 15(7), 6304. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076304
43. Lowke, D., Dini, E., Perrot, A., Weger, D., Gehlen, C., & Dillenburger, B. (2018). Particle-bed 3D printing in concrete construction–possibilities and challenges. Cement and Concrete Research, 112, 50-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.05.018
44. Lyons, M., Schilderman, T., & Boano, C. (Eds.). (2010). Building back better: Delivering people-centred housing reconstruction at scale. Practical Action Publishing.
45. Masozera, M., Bailey, M., & Kerchner, C. (2007). Distribution of impacts of natural disasters across income groups: A case study of New Orleans. Ecological Economics, 63(2-3), 299-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06.013
46. Montalbano, G., & Santi, G. (2023). Sustainability of temporary housing in post-disaster scenarios: A Requirement-based design strategy. Buildings, 13(12), 2952. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13122952 Murphy, R. R. (2015). Disaster robotics. MIT Press.
47. Muruzina, E., & Zonina, S. (2020). Composite materials in building structures using 3D technology. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 962(2), 022017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/962/2/022017
48. Müller, C., & ElZomor, M. (2024). Post-Disaster Challenges and Fostering Social Mobility through Origami Infrastructure and Construction Trade Education. Sustainability, 16(8), 3415. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083415
49. Oliver-Smith, A. (1991). Successes and failures in post-disaster resettlement. Disasters, 15(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.1991.tb00423.x
50. Omoraka, A. E., Temitope Egbelakin, T., & Kanjanabootra, S. (2025). Strategies for mitigating the challenges of post-disaster reconstruction. In Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1518&context=cib-conferences
51. Ophiyandri, T., Amaratunga, R.D., & Pathirage, C.P. (2010, May 10-13). Community based post disaster housing reconstruction: Indonesian perspective. Proceeding of CIB World Congress. Salford, United Kingdom. https://salford-repository.worktribe.com/output/1461197/community-based-post-disaster-housing-reconstruction-indonesian-perspective
52. Panda, B., Paul, S. C., Hui, L. J., Tay, Y. W. D., & Tan, M. J. (2017). Additive manufacturing of geopolymer for sustainable built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.165
53. Partigöç, N.S. (2022). Afet Risk Yönetiminde Yapay Zekâ Kullanımının Rolü. Bilişim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 15(4), 401-411. https://doi.org/10.17671/gazibtd.1067831
54. Pei, S., Popovski, M., & van de Lindt, J. W. (2013). Analytical study on seismic force modification factors for cross-laminated timber buildings. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 40(9): 887-896. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2013-0021
55. Perrot, A., Jacquet, Y., Rangeard, D., Courteille, E., & Sonebi, M. (2020). Nailing of layers: A promising way to reinforce concrete 3D printing structures. Materials, 13(7), 1518. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13071518
56. Petric, J., Maver, T.W., Conti, G., & Ucelli, G. (2002). Virtual reality in the service of user participation. Distributing knowledge in building. In K. Agger et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of CIB W78 Conference (pp. 217-224), Aarhus, Denmark.
57. Puri, A., Elkharboutly, M., & Ali, N. A. (2024). Identifying major challenges in managing post-disaster reconstruction projects: A critical analysis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 107, 104491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104491
58. Rapoport, A. (1969). House form and culture. Prentice-Hall.
59. Quarantelli, E. L. (1995). Patterns of sheltering and housing in US disasters. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 4(3), 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653569510088069
60. Sanders, E. (2002). From user-centered to participatory design approaches. In J. Frascara (Ed.), Design and the social sciences: Making connections (pp. 1–8). Taylor & Francis.
61. Saunders, G. (2004). Dilemmas and challenges for the shelter sector: Lessons learned from the sphere revision process. Disasters, 28(2), 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0361-3666.2004.00250.x
62. Schilderman, T., & Lyons, M. (2011). Resilient dwellings or resilient people? Towards people-centered reconstruction. Environmental Hazards, 10(3–4), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2011.598497
63. Song, G., Sethi, V., & Li, H. N. (2006). Vibration control of civil structures using piezoceramic smart materials: A review. Engineering Structures, 28(11), 1513–1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.02.002
64. Subramanya, K., & Kermanshachi, S. (2022). Exploring utilization of 3D printed housing as post-disaster temporary shelter for displaced people. Proceedings of the ASCE International Conference on Construction Research.
65. Taylor, M., Wamuziri, S., & Smith, I. (2003). Automated construction in Japan. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil Engineering, 156(1), 34-41. https://doi.org/10.1680/cien.2003.156.1.34
66. The George Washington University, Energy & Environmental Institute. (2021). Energy resilience, smart communities. https://eemi.engineering.gwu.edu/energy-resilience-smart-communities
67. Tierney, K., & Oliver-Smith, A. (2012). Social dimensions of disaster recovery. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 30(2), 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/028072701203000210
68. TOKİ. (t.y.). Afet Konutları. 28 Eylül 2025 tarihinde https://www.toki.gov.tr/afet-konutlari adresinden alınmıştır.
69. TOKİ Haber. (2020, Kasım 17). İzmir’de konteyner kurulumu devam ediyor. 15 Şubat 2025 tarihinde https://www.tokihaber.com.tr/haberler/izmirde-konteyner-kurulumu-devam-ediyor/ adresinden alınmıştır.
70. Torus, B., & Şener, S. M. (2015). Post-disaster shelter design and CPODS. ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 12(1), 269–282.
71. TRT Haber. (2023, Mart 2). AFAD, 11 ildeki 332 noktada çadır kent kurdu. 15 Şubat 2025 tarihinde https://www.trthaber.com/haber/gundem/afad-11-ildeki-332-noktada-cadir-kent-kurdu-750163.html adresinden alınmıştır.
72. University of Wisconsin–Extension, Economic Development. (2022). Energy resilience – community economic development. https://economicdevelopment.extension.wisc.edu/community-resilience-menu/explore-our-menus/energy-efficiency-menu/energy-resilience
73. UN-Habitat. (2010). Shelter after disaster: Strategies for transitional settlement and reconstruction. United Nations Human Settlements Programme. https://www.humanitarianlibrary.org/sites/default/files/2014/01/shelterafterdisasterguidelines2010_0.pdf
74. Vale, L. J., & Campanella, T. J. (2005). The resilient city: How modern cities recover from disaster. Oxford University Press.
75. Wang, X., Li, W., Guo, Y., Kashani, A., Wang, K., Ferrara, L., & Agudelo, I. (2024). Concrete 3D printing technology for sustainable construction: A review on raw material, concrete type and performance. Developments in the Built Environment, 17, 100378, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2024.100378
76. Wille, K., Naaman, A., & Parra-Montesinos, G. (2011). Ultra-high performance concrete with compressive strength exceeding 150 MPa (22 ksi): A simpler way. ACI Materials Journal, 108(1). 46-54.
77. Xiao, Y., & Mostafavi, A. (2025). DamageCAT: A deep learning transformer framework for typology-based post-disaster building damage categorization. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 128, 105704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105704
78. Zavaleta, D., Quispe,A., Rojas, O., Silva, G., Kim,S., Nakamatsu,J., Ruiz, G., Pando, M.A., & Aguilar, R. (2025). 3D-printing of a basic housing unit prototype using earthen-based matrices stabilized with rice husk fibers. Journal of Building Engineering, 103,112111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2025.112111