Afet Sonrası Geçici Barınma Kalite Kriterlerinin Sürdürülebilirlik Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Afetler, türsel farklılıklar gösterse de küresel ölçekte benzer sosyo-ekonomik ve fiziksel zorluklar yaratmaktadır. Bu zorlukların başında, afetzedelerin temel ihtiyaçlarının karşılanması sürecinde en kritik konulardan biri olan barınma gelmektedir. Afet sonrası geçici barınma çözümleri; afetin türü, etkilenen nüfusun demografik yapısı, kullanıcıların özel ihtiyaçları, mevcut kaynaklar ve karar verici aktörlerin öncelikleri doğrultusunda çeşitlilik göstermektedir. Bu çeşitlilik, geçici barınma birimlerinin kalitesinin değerlendirilmesine ilişkin standart bir veri altyapısının oluşturulmasını zorlaştırmaktadır. Paydaşların karar alma süreçlerinde başvurabilecekleri güvenilir ve karşılaştırılabilir veri havuzlarının yetersizliği, afet sonrası barınma planlamalarında sürdürülebilirlik temelli bir yaklaşımın benimsenmesini sınırlamakta ve uygulamaya geçiş süreçlerinde çeşitli problemler ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışma, söz konusu sorunsalı temel alarak, geçici barınma birimlerinin kalite kriterlerini sürdürülebilirlik ekseninde yeniden değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında, son on yıl içerisinde yayımlanmış afet sonrası geçici barınmaya ilişkin akademik yayınlar incelenmiş ve elde edilen bulgular meta-analiz yöntemiyle değerlendirilmiştir. Analiz, kalite kriterlerini çevresel, sosyal, ekonomik ve teknik sürdürülebilirlik boyutları altında gruplandırarak kapsamlı bir kriter havuzu oluşturmuştur. Ayrıca, bu kriterler arasındaki ilişkiler değerlendirilmiş ve kalite analizine temel oluşturabilecek yapısal bir çerçeve önerilmiştir. Sonuç bölümünde, gelecekte yürütülecek çalışmalarda kullanılmak üzere geçici barınma birimlerinin kalite değerlendirmesine yönelik sayısallaştırma ve matematiksel model önerilerine yer verilmiştir. Çalışma, afet sonrası barınma çözümlerinin kalite analizine yönelik sürdürülebilirlik ekseninde öneriler sunmakta olup, bu alandaki araştırmalar için başlangıç niteliğinde bir rehber olarak değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Afet sonrası geçici barınma
• Kalite değerlendirmesi
• Sürdürülebilirlik
• Meta-analiz

Evaluation of Post-Disaster Temporary Shelter Quality Criteria in the Context of Sustainability

Abstract

Disasters, regardless of their type, create similar socio-economic and physical challenges on a global scale. Among these, the provision of shelter stands out as one of the most critical components in meeting the basic needs of affected populations. Post-disaster temporary shelter solutions vary depending on the type of disaster, the demographic structure of the affected population, specific user needs, available resources, and the priorities of decision-makers. This diversity complicates the development of a standardized framework for assessing the quality of temporary shelter units. The absence of reliable and comparable data sets that stakeholders can refer to during decision-making processes limits the adoption of sustainability-based approaches in shelter planning and creates various challenges during implementation. This study aims to reassess the quality criteria of temporary shelter units from a sustainability perspective. For this purpose, academic publications on post-disaster temporary sheltering published over the last decade were systematically reviewed, and the findings were analyzed using a meta-analysis method. The identified quality criteria were categorized under four dimensions of sustainability: environmental, social, economic, and technical. Based on these categories, a comprehensive pool of criteria was developed, and the interrelations among them were examined to propose a structural framework for quality assessment. The study concludes with recommendations for quantification methods and mathematical models that can guide future evaluations of temporary shelter units. By providing sustainability-oriented insights into the quality analysis of post-disaster shelter solutions, this research serves as a preliminary guide for future studies in the field.

Keywords

• Post-disaster temporary shelter
• Quality assessment
• Sustainability
• Meta-analysis

Kaynakça

1. Abrahams, D. (2014). The barriers to environmental sustainability in post‐disaster settings: a case study of transitional shelter implementation in Haiti. Disasters, 38(s1), S25-S49. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12054
2. Ahmed, I., & Charlesworth, E. R. (2015). An evaluation framework for assessing resilience of post-disaster housing. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 6(3), 300-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-11-2013-0042
3. Albadra, D., Coley D., & Hart J. (2018) Toward healthy housing for the displaced, The Journal of Architecture, 23(1), 115-136, https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2018.1424227
4. Asali, M. W. A., Wagemann, E., & Ramage, M. H. (2019). Living on the move, dwelling between temporality and permanence in Syria. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 34, 829-843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-019-09685-9
5. Avlar, E., Limoncu, S., & Tızman, D. (2023). Post-earthquake temporary housing unit: CLT E-BOX. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 38(1), 471-482. https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.1027894
6. Ayanoğlu, G., & Erbaş, İ. (2023). An experimentation on the design of post-disaster shelter units using kinetic architectural element. Journal of Disaster and Risk, 6(3), 776-796. https://doi.org/10.35341/afet.1195209
7. Ayvaz, E., & Arpacıoğlu, Ü. (2024). Afet Sonrası Geçici Barınma Alanları İçin Konteyner Model Önerilerinin Geliştirilmesi. Mimarlık ve Yaşam, 9(1), 169-193. https://doi.org/10.26835/my.1396352
8. Barbosa, L. L. (2014). Capacity building through design innovation with vegetable fibres for temporary shelters. Procedia Economics and Finance, 18, 230-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00935-6

9. Can, İ., & Saka, A. E. (2022). Deprem sonrası geçici barınma birimleri için alternatif bir çözüm önerisi: WikiGEB. Online Journal of Art and Design, 10(2), 115-125.
10. Dash, S. P., Pati, D. J., Mohamed, Z. S., & Ramesh, S. (2022). To study the material feasibility and propose design prototype for temporary housing structures for emergency relief. Materials Today: Proceedings, 60, 123-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.12.274
11. DeCoster, J. (2009). Meta-Analysis Notes, Institute for Social Science Research University of Alabama. [CrossRef]
12. D'Orazio, M., & Maracchini, G. (2019). An experimental investigation on the indoor hygrothermal environment of a reinforced-EPS based temporary housing solution. Energy and Buildings, 204, 109500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109500
13. Faragallah, R. N. (2021). Fundamentals of temporary dwelling solutions: A proposed sustainable model for design and construction. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 12(3), 3305-3316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.11.016
14. Felix, D., Branco, J.M. & Feio, A. (2013). Guidelines to improve sustainability and cultural integration of temporary housing units, i-Rec conference 2013 Sustainable Post-Disaster Reconstruction: From Recovery to Risk Reduction, Centro Stefano Franscini, Monte Verità Ascona, Switzerland, 26-30 May 2013. [CrossRef]
15. Félix, D., Monteiro, D., Branco, J. M., Bologna, R., & Feio, A. (2015). The role of temporary accommodation buildings for post-disaster housing reconstruction. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 30, 683-699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-014-9431-4
16. FEMA. (2020). Planning Considerations: Disaster Housing. [CrossRef]
17. Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta‐analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63(3), 665-694.
18. Fritz Institute (2006). Evidence of Impact: Challenges and New Directions Proceedings of the 2006 Impact Conference, May 19‐20 2006, Sebastopol, California: Fritz Institute http://www.fritzinstitute.org/prgHI‐Conference2006.html
19. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003
20. Guarnacci, U. (2012). Governance for sustainable reconstruction after disasters: Lessons from Nias, Indonesia. Environmental Development, 2, 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2012.03.010
21. Hallam, A. (1998). Evaluating humanitarian assistance programmes in complex emergencies. In Evaluating humanitarian assistance programmes in complex emergencies. Good Practice Review, 7, 102. [CrossRef]
22. Halliday, S. (2008). Sustainable construction. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
23. Harrison, F. (2011). Getting started with meta‐analysis. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00056.x
24. Hosseini, S. A., de la Fuente, A., & Pons, O. (2016). Multi-criteria decision-making method for assessing the sustainability of post-disaster temporary housing units technologies: A case study in Bam, 2003. Sustainable Cities and Society, 20, 38-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.09.012
25. Hosseini, S. A., Ghalambordezfooly, R., & de la Fuente, A. (2022). Sustainability Model to Select Optimal Site Location for Temporary Housing Units: Combining GIS and the MIVES–Knapsack Model. Sustainability, 14(8), 4453. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084453
26. Johnson, C. (2007). Strategic planning for post‐disaster temporary housing. Disasters, 31(4), 435-458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0361-3666.2007.01018.x
27. Johnson, C., Lizarralde, G., & Davidson, C. H. (2006). A systems view of temporary housing projects in post‐disaster reconstruction. Construction Management and Economics, 24(4), 367-378. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190600567977
28. Kawakami, N., Fukasawa, M., Sakata, K., Suzuki, R., Tomita, H., Nemoto, H., ... & Bromet, E. J. (2020). Onset and remission of common mental disorders among adults living in temporary housing for three years after the triple disaster in Northeast Japan: comparisons with the general population. BMC Public Health, 20, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09378-x
29. Kawuwa, S. A. (2017). A proposed method of exploring the use of kinetic architecture for housing the migrant fulbe in Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences & Environmental Sustainability, 3(8), 72-83.
30. Kirsch, T. D., Perrin, P., Burkle, F. M., Canny, W., Purdin, S., Lin, W., & Sauer, L. (2012). Requirements for independent community-based quality assessment and accountability practices in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief activities. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 27(3), 280-285. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X12000842
31. Kotani, H., Honda, R., Imoto, S., Shakya, L., & Shrestha, B. K. (2020). Transition of post-disaster housing of rural households: A case study of the 2015 Gorkha earthquake in Nepal. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 44, 101443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101443
32. Li, J., Jin, Y., Zhao, R., Han, Y., & Habert, G. (2023). Using the EEG+ VR+ LEC evaluation method to explore the combined influence of temperature and spatial openness on the physiological recovery of post-disaster populations. Building and Environment, 243, 110637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110637
33. Limoncu, S., & Bayülgen, C. (2005). Türkiye’de afet sonrası yaşanan barınma sorunları. Megaron, 1(1), 18.
34. Lines, R., Faure Walker, J.P., & Yore (2022). Progression through emergency and temporary shelter, transitional housing and permanent housing: A longitudinal case study from the 2018 Lombok earthquake, Indonesia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102959
35. Maden, F. (2023). The Architecture of the future: Kinetic structures and Mashrabiya-based facade design. Tasarim+ Kuram, 19(38), 98-114. https://doi.org/10.59215/tasarimkuram.2023.373
36. Madu, C., & Kuei, C. H. (2014). Disaster relief supply chain quality management (DRSCQM). International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 31(9), 1052-1067. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-08-2013-0136
37. Maiteh, S. M., & Zoltán, E. S. (2023). Descriptive comparative analysis of post-disaster settlements. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 103879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103879
38. Mayunga, J. S. (2009). Measuring the measure: A multi-dimensional scale model to measure community disaster resilience in the US Gulf Coast region. [Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A&M University].
39. McConnell, C., & Bertolin, C. (2019). Quantifying environmental impacts of temporary housing at the urban scale: Intersection of vulnerability and post-hurricane relief in New Orleans. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 10, 478-492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-019-00244-y
40. Mirza, M.N.A. (2020). Analysis of post-disaster emergency housing projects in terms of interior space quality parameters. [Master’s thesis, Yasar University].
41. Miyaji, M., Okazaki, K., & Ochiai, C. (2020). A study on the use of cyclone shelters in Bangladesh. Japan Architectural Review, 3(4), 590-600. https://doi.org/10.1002/2475-8876.12177
42. Modgil, S., Singh, R. K., & Foropon, C. (2022). Quality management in humanitarian operations and disaster relief management: A review and future research directions. Annals of Operations Research, 1-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03695-5
43. 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
44. Moreno-Sierra, A., Pieschacón, M., & Khan, A. (2020). The use of recycled plastics for the design of a thermal resilient emergency shelter prototype. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 50, 101885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101885
45. Nasution, I. W. (2017). A Research on a Temporary Shelter Design to be Used After Natural Disasters: A Case Study of Indonesia – Sinabung. Journal of Natural Hazards and Environment, 3(2), 93-111, https://doi.org/10.21324/dacd.307100 Parva, M., & Rahimian, F. P. (2014). Transformability as a factor of sustainability in post-earthquake houses in Iran: the case study of Lar city. Procedia Economics and Finance, 18, 431-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00960-5
46. Perrucci, D. V., Vazquez, B. A., & Aktas, C. B. (2016). Sustainable temporary housing: Global trends and outlook. Procedia Engineering, 145, 327-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.082
47. Pezzica, C., Cutini, V., de Souza, C. B., & Aloini, D. (2022). The making of cities after disasters: Strategic planning and the Central Italy temporary housing process. Cities, 131, 104053. - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.104053
48. Pomponi, F., Moghayedi, A., Alshawawreh, L., D’Amico, B., & Windapo, A. (2019). Sustainability of post-disaster and post-conflict sheltering in Africa: What matters?. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 20, 140-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.06.007
49. Potangaroa, R. (2015). Sustainability by design: The challenge of shelter in post disaster reconstruction. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 179, 212-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.424
50. Pusceddu, C., Blumberg, G., Salvalai, G., & Imperadori, M. (2017). The use of building technology to support disaster resilience: the case study of air shelter house. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 8(02), 139-157. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-11-2015-0057
51. Quarantelli, E. L. (1995). Editor's Introduction: What Is a Disaster?. International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters, 13(3), 221-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/028072709501300301
52. Rakes, T. R., Deane, J. K., Rees, L. P., & Fetter, G. M. (2014). A decision support system for post-disaster interim housing. Decision Support Systems, 66, 160-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2014.06.012
53. Rapone, L., Butt, A. A., Loonen, R. C., Salvadori, G., & Leccese, F. (2024). Investigating Advanced Building Envelopes for Energy Efficiency in Prefab Temporary Post-Disaster Housing. Energies, 17(9), 2008. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17092008
54. Salvalai, G., Imperadori, M., Lumina, F., Mutti, E., & Polese, I. (2017). Architecture for refugees, resilience shelter project: a case study using recycled skis. Procedia Engineering, 180, 1110-1120.
55. Sarıcıoğlu, P. (2017). Investigation of use of external kinetic building elements in housing typology (Thesis No: 472753). [Master’s thesis, Gazi University]. YÖK Thesis Center.
56. Savaşır, K. (2008). Research of Suitable Construction Systems Appropriate to the Conditions of Turkey For Post-Disaster Housing Designs to be Implemented and Converted from Temporary to Permanent (Thesis No: 243971). [Doctoral dissertation, Dokuz Eylul University]. YÖK Thesis Center.
57. Schmitt, R. J., Virgüez, E., Ashfaq, S., & Caldeira, K. (2023). Move up or move over: mapping opportunities for climate adaptation in Pakistan’s Indus plains. Environmental Research Letters, 18(11), 114024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acfc59
58. Seppänen, H., & Virrantaus, K. (2015). Shared situational awareness and information quality in disaster management. Safety Science, 77, 112-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.03.018
59. Song, Y., Mithraratne, N., & Zhang, H. (2016). Life-time performance of post-disaster temporary housing: A case study in Nanjing. Energy and Buildings, 128, 394-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.07.019
60. Suriastini, N. W., Wijayanti, I. Y., Sikoki, B., & Sumantri, C. S. (2023). Measuring Disaster Recovery: Lessons Learned from Early Recovery in Post-Tsunami Area of Aceh, Indonesia. Sustainability, 15(24), 16870. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416870
61. Tran, T.A. (2015). Post-disaster housing reconstruction as a significant opportunity to building disaster resilience: a case in Vietnam. Natural Hazards. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1826-3
62. Türker, H. B., Kalkan, M., & Ortaç, G. (2024). Reimagining resilience: The transformative role of urban green areas in Türkiye's disaster preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 106, 104397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104397
63. UDHR. (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [CrossRef]
64. URL-1. Em-Dat. Data That Save Lives, retrieved from https://www.emdat.be/ (last access: 06.11.2024)
65. Wagemann, E. (2015). Making the temporary shelter a “home”, Transitional housing in Chile and Peru. Scroope: The Cambridge Architecture Journal. 24, 120–127.
66. Wang, C., Huang, X., Chen, H., & Liang, W. (2021). A Study for the Influence of the Location of PCMs Assembly System on Improving Thermal Environment inside Disaster-Relief Temporary Houses. Journal of Renewable Materials, 9(7), 1239-1252. https://doi.org/10.32604/jrm.2021.014746
67. Watson, C. (2008). Impact assessment of humanitarian response: a review of the literature. Feinstein International Center, Medford. [CrossRef]
68. Witt, E., Sharma, K., & Lill, I. (2014). Mapping construction industry roles to the disaster management cycle. Procedia Economics and Finance, 18, 103-110.
69. Xin, Z. Y., Baber, K., & Gattas, J. M. (2022). A novel tension strap connection for rapid assembly of temporary timber structures. Engineering Structures, 262, 114320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114320
70. Yi, H., & Yang, J. (2014). Research trends of post disaster reconstruction: The past and the future. Habitat International, 42, 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.10.005
71. Zafra, R. G., Mayo, J. R. M., Villareal, P. J. M., De Padua, V. M. N., Castillo, M. H. T., Sundo, M. B., & Madlangbayan, M. S. (2021). Structural and thermal performance assessment of shipping container as post-disaster housing in tropical climates. Civil Engineering Journal, 7, 1437-1458. http://dx.doi.org/10.28991/cej-2021-03091735