Deprem Sonrası Kalıcı Konut Üretiminde Döngüsel Ekonomi: RIBA Plan of Work Temelli Modüler Bir Kavramsal Model

Öz

Deprem sonrası kalıcı konut üretimi, yalnızca kısa sürede barınma sağlama meselesi değil; dayanıklılık, uyarlanabilirlik, kaynak verimliliği ve uzun dönemli çevresel performans açısından ele alınması gereken çok aşamalı bir yeniden yapılanma sürecidir. Döngüsel ekonomi bu alanda güçlü bir kavramsal çerçeve sunmakla birlikte, bu ilkelerin kalıcı konut üretiminin farklı karar aşamalarına nasıl entegre edileceği literatürde henüz sistematik biçimde açıklanmamıştır. Bu çalışma, söz konusu boşluğu ele alarak döngüsel ekonomi ilkelerini deprem sonrası kalıcı konut üretimi bağlamında incelemekte ve modüler yapı sistemleri temelinde, RIBA Plan of Work aşamalarına dayalı süreç odaklı bir kavramsal model önermektedir. Araştırma, PRISMA 2020 ilkelerine uygun olarak yürütülen sistematik literatür taramasına dayanmaktadır. Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar ve DergiPark veri tabanlarında yapılan taramalar sonucunda 663 kayda ulaşılmış; yinelenen kayıtların ayıklanmasının ardından 442 çalışma başlık ve özet düzeyinde değerlendirilmiştir. Bunlardan 222’si dışlanmış, 220 tam metin incelenmiş ve 85 çalışma nitel senteze dâhil edilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler, tematik analiz ve yaşam döngüsü yaklaşımı birlikte kullanılarak çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular, döngüselliğin afet sonrası kalıcı konutlarda yalnızca geri dönüştürülmüş malzeme kullanımıyla sınırlı olmadığını; tasarım kararları, üretim mantığı, lojistik organizasyon, kullanım sürecinde uyarlanabilirlik ve kullanım sonrası söküm-yeniden kullanım senaryolarını kapsayan bütüncül bir sistem yaklaşımı gerektirdiğini göstermektedir. Özellikle modüler yapı sistemlerinin sökülebilirlik, standartlaşma, esneklik, yeniden kullanım ve malzeme geri kazanımı açısından daha yüksek bir döngüsel potansiyel taşıdığı belirlenmiştir. Çalışmanın özgünlüğü, döngüsel ekonomiyi afet sonrası kalıcı konut üretimi bağlamında yeniden kavramsallaştırması ve bunu aşama bazlı bir karar modeli halinde sunmasında yatmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• döngüsel ekonomi
• afet sonrası kalıcı konut
• modüler yapı sistemleri
• RIBA Plan of Work
• yaşam döngüsü yaklaşımı

Circular Economy in Post-Earthquake Permanent Housing: A Modular Conceptual Model Based on the RIBA Plan of Work

Öz

Post-earthquake permanent housing should not be understood merely as the rapid provision of shelter, but as a multi-stage reconstruction process that must address resilience, adaptability, resource efficiency, and long-term environmental performance. Although the circular economy offers a strong conceptual framework for this field, the literature has not yet systematically explained how circular principles can be integrated into the different decision stages of permanent housing delivery. Addressing this gap, the present study examines circular economy principles in the context of post-earthquake permanent housing and proposes a process-oriented conceptual model based on modular building systems and structured through the stages of the RIBA Plan of Work. The research is based on a systematic literature review conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searches across Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and DergiPark yielded 663 studies. After duplicate removal, 442 studies were screened at title and abstract level, 220 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 85 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. The data were analysed through a combination of thematic analysis and life-cycle reasoning. The findings show that circularity in post-disaster permanent housing cannot be reduced to the use of recycled materials alone. Rather, it requires a systemic approach encompassing design decisions, production logic, logistics organisation, in-use adaptability, and end-of-use disassembly and reuse scenarios. In particular, modular building systems were found to offer a stronger circular potential in terms of disassembly, standardisation, flexibility, reuse, and material recovery. The originality of the study lies in reconceptualising circular economy within the specific context of post-earthquake permanent housing and in presenting it as a stage-based decision model rather than a general sustainability principle.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• circular economy
• post-disaster permanent housing
• modular building systems
• RIBA Plan of Work
• life-cycle approach

Kaynakça

1. Ahmed, I. (2011). An overview of post-disaster permanent housing reconstruction in developing countries. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 2(2), 148-164. https://doi.org/10.1108/17595901111149141
2. Alexander, D. E. (2002). Principles of emergency planning and management. Oxford University Press.
3. Askar, R., Rodrigues, A. L., Bragança, L., & Pinheiro, D. (2019). From temporary to permanent: A circular approach for post-disaster housing reconstruction. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 225(1), 012032. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/225/1/012032
4. Bocken, N. M. P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C., & van der Grinten, B. (2016). Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 33(5), 308-320.
5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
6. Brown, C., & Milke, M. (2016). Recycling disaster waste: Feasibility, method and effectiveness. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 106, 21-32.
7. Chen, C.-C., Lai, C.-H., Guo, N.-R., & Wu, S.-M. (2024). Exploring the consumer acceptance of circular housing from the perspective of SOR theory. Sustainability, 16(8), 3268. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083268
8. Corbacioglu, S., & Kapucu, N. (2006). Organisational learning and self-adaptation in dynamic disaster environments. Disasters, 30(2), 212-233.

9. Çetin, S., & Kirchherr, J. (2025). The Build Back Circular framework: Circular economy strategies for post-disaster reconstruction and recovery. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 5(3), 1689-1726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-024-00495-y
10. Dewi, O. C., Nasruddin, Salsabila, N. D., Rahmasari, K., & Khairunnisa, G. (2025). Building circularity potential for post-disaster housing: LCA, cost evaluation, and material optimization. Circular Economy, 4, 100141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cec.2025.100141
11. Faleschini, F., Zanini, M. A., Hofer, L., Zampieri, P., & Pellegrino, C. (2017). Sustainable management of demolition waste in post-quake recovery processes: The Italian experience. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 24, 172-182.
12. Fernandez, G., & Ahmed, I. (2019). Build back better approach to disaster recovery: Research trends since 2006. Progress in Disaster Science, 1, 100003.
13. Finucane, M. L., Acosta, J., Wicker, A., & Whipkey, K. (2020). Short-term solutions to a long-term challenge: Rethinking disaster recovery planning to reduce vulnerabilities and inequities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
14. Friedman, A. (2025). Housing design for circular economy and sustainability. Sustainability, 17(7), 2921. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072921
15. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy: A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757-768.
16. Gorfe, H. N., & Ensarioğlu, S. A. (2025). Exploring the Potential of Modular Design in Addressing Post-Disaster Temporary Housing Needs. Kent Akademisi, 18(5), 2937-2954.
17. Karimi, R., Shirowzhan, S., & Sepasgozar, S. M. E. (2023). Architectural design criteria considering the circular economy and buildability for smart disaster relief shelter prototyping. Buildings, 13(7), 1777.
18. Kirchherr, J., Yang, N.-H. N., Schulze-Spüntrup, F., Heerink, M. J., & Hartley, K. (2023). Conceptualizing the circular economy (revisited): An analysis of 221 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 194, 107001.
19. Lettieri, E., Masella, C., & Radaelli, G. (2009). Disaster management: Findings from a systematic review. Disaster Prevention and Management, 18(2), 117-136.
20. Limoncu, S., & Bayülgen, C. (2005). Türkiye’de afet sonrası yaşanan barınma sorunları. YTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi e-Dergisi, 1(1).
21. Lu, Y., & Xu, J. (2015). NGO collaboration in community post-disaster reconstruction: Field research following the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. Disasters, 39(2), 258-278.
22. Mannakkara, S., Sankaran, N. O., Chroust, S. G., & Wilkinson, S. (2014). Re-conceptualising Building Back Better to improve post-disaster recovery. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 7(3), 327-341.
23. Mannakkara, S., Wilkinson, S., & Francis, T. R. (2014). Build Back Better principles for reconstruction. In M. Beer, I. A. Kougioumtzoglou, E. Patelli, & I. K. Au (Eds.), Encyclopedia of earthquake engineering (pp. 1-12). Springer.
24. Montalbano, G., & Santi, G. (2023). Sustainability of temporary housing in post-disaster scenarios: A requirement-based design strategy. Buildings, 13(12), 2952.
25. Ossio, F., Salinas, C., & Hernández, H. (2023). Circular economy in the built environment: A systematic literature review and definition of the circular construction concept. Journal of Cleaner Production, 414, 137738.
26. Özata, Ş., & Limoncu, S. (2014). 16. ve 20. yy. arası İstanbul ve yakın çevresinde meydana gelen deprem sonrası barınma uygulamalarının incelenmesi. Megaron, 9(3), 217-236.
27. Özçevik, Ö., Türk, Ş., Taş, E., Yaman, H., & Beygo, C. (2009). Flagship regeneration project as a tool for post-disaster recovery planning: The Zeytinburnu case. Disasters, 33(2), 180-202.
28. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
29. Perrucci, D., & Baroud, H. (2020). A review of temporary housing management modeling: Trends in design strategies, optimization models, and decision-making methods. Sustainability, 12(24), 10388.
30. Pradhananga, P., & ElZomor, M. (2023). Revamping sustainability efforts post-disaster by adopting circular economy resilience practices. Sustainability, 15(22), 15870. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215870
31. Rayhan, D. S. A., & Bhuiyan, I. U. (2023). Review of construction and demolition waste management tools and frameworks with the classification, causes, and impacts of the waste. Waste Disposal & Sustainable Energy, 6(1), 95-121.
32. Royal Institute of British Architects. (2020). RIBA Plan of Work 2020 overview. RIBA.
33. Saffarzadeh, A., Shimaoka, T., Nakayama, H., Hanashima, T., Yamaguchi, K., & Manabe, K. (2017). Tasks and problems involved in the handling of disaster waste upon April 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake, Japan. Natural Hazards, 89(3), 1273-1290.
34. Smith, G. P., & Wenger, D. (2007). Sustainable disaster recovery: Operationalizing an existing agenda. In H. Rodríguez, E. L. Quarantelli, & R. R. Dynes (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 234-257). Springer.
35. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339.
36. Tabata, T., Onishi, A., Saeki, T., & Tsai, P. (2019). Earthquake disaster waste management reviews: Prediction, treatment, recycling, and prevention. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 36, 101119.
37. Taş, İ., & Markoc, I. (2025). A RIBA Plan of Work-Integrated Digital Participation Framework for Urban Regeneration in Low-Income Housing: The Case of Türkiye. EKSEN Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 88-108. https://doi.org/10.58317/eksen.1828506
38. Waite, I. A. (2020). Power differentials in Istanbul redevelopment practices: Toward a more collaborative decision-making process. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 43(2), 428-437.
39. Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546-553.
40. Yıldız, D., & Markoc, I. (2025). Redefining Minimalism in Housing: Introducing the M1-13 Evaluation Framework via NLP and Multi-Scale Criteria. Sürdürülebilir Mühendislik Uygulamaları Ve Teknolojik Gelişmeler Dergisi, 8(1), 61-76. https://doi.org/10.51764/smutgd.1707768
41. Yu, B., & Fingrut, A. (2022). Sustainable building design with reclaimed wood library constructed in collaboration with 3D scanning technology in the UK. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 186, 106566.
42. Zhang, Y.-L., Kim, Y.-C., & Cha, G.-W. (2023). Assessment of deep learning-based image analysis for disaster waste identification. Journal of Cleaner Production, 428, 139351.
43. Zhou, B., Zhang, H., & Evans, R. (2022). Build back better: A framework for sustainable recovery assessment. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 76, 102998.