Measuring the Effectiveness of Post-Earthquake Social Policies Using the Intuitionistic Fuzzy SIWEC Method: The Case of the February 6 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes

Öz

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of social policies implemented in the aftermath of the February 6, 2023, Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. The research employed the Intuitionistic Fuzzy SIWEC technique, a multi-criteria decision-making method. Eight experts with substantial field experience evaluated seven main criteria and forty-four sub-criteria. The findings indicate that social policies—particularly in the "food and basic needs" category (covering clean drinking water, hygiene products, the food supply chain, food safety, and the provision of special nutritional needs) and, more broadly, policies within the "health and education services" category—have been implemented successfully. In contrast, under the "employment and social security" category, efforts to combat informality, provide vocational training, grant tax exemptions, and support SMEs were deemed inadequate. Similarly, within the "basic infrastructure and public services" category, notable deficiencies were identified in urban planning and construction, in ensuring transparency and fairness in public social policies, and in restoring telecommunication and internet infrastructure. In addition policies targeting vulnerable groups and psychosocial support services were found to be relatively neglected.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kahramanmaraş earthquakes
• Post-disaster social policies
• Multi-criteria decision making
• SIWEC Method

Sezgisel Bulanık SIWEC Yöntemi Kullanılarak Deprem Sonrası Sosyal Politikaların Etkinliğinin Ölçülmesi: 6 Şubat Kahramanmaraş Depremleri Örneği

Öz

Bu çalışma, Kahramanmaraş Depremlerinin ardından uygulanan sosyal politikaların etkinliğini ölçmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmada, çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden Sezgisel Bulanık SIWEC tekniği kullanılmıştır. Alanında önemli deneyime sahip sekiz uzman tarafından yedi ana kriter ve kırk dört alt kriter değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, özellikle “gıda ve temel ihtiyaçlar” kategorisinde yer alan temiz içme suyu, hijyen ürünleri, gıda tedarik zinciri ve gıda güvenliği ile özel beslenme ihtiyaçlarının karşılanmasında ayrıca genel olarak “sağlık ve eğitim hizmetleri” kategorisindeki kriterlere yönelik sosyal politika uygulamalarında başarılı olunduğunu göstermektedir. Buna karşılık “istihdam ve sosyal güvence” kapsamında kayıt dışılıkla mücadele, mesleki eğitim, vergi muafiyetleri ve KOBİ destekleri alanlarında zayıf kalındığı görülmektedir. Benzer şekilde, “temel altyapı ve kamu hizmetleri” kapsamında kentsel planlama ve yapılaşma, kamusal sosyal politikaların şeffaflığı ve adilliği ile telekomünikasyon ve internet altyapısının onarımında da önemli eksiklikler bulunmaktadır. Ek olarak kırılgan gruplara yönelik politikaların ve psikososyal destek hizmetlerinin görece geri planda kaldığı tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kahramanmaraş depremleri
• Afet sonrası sosyal politikalar
• Çok kriterli karar verme
• SIWEC Yöntemi

Etik Beyan

Bayburt Üniversitesi Etik Kurulu’nun 20.08.2025 tarih ve 11 nolu toplantısında alınan 407 nolu kararı ile izni alınmıştır.

Kaynakça

1. Akhoondzadeh M., Marchetti D., 2023. Study of the preparation phase of Turkey’s powerful earthquake (6 February 2023) by a geophysical multi-parametric fuzzy inference system, Remote Sensing, 15(9), 1-25, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15092224.
2. Aksoy C.G., Chupilkin M., Koczan Z., Plekhanov A., 2024. Unearthing the impact of earthquakes: A review of economic and social consequences, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1-22, https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22642.
3. Alexander D.E., 2015. Evaluation of civil protection programmes, with a case study from Mexico, Disaster Prevention and Management, 24(2), 263-283, https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-12-2014-0268.
4. Altun F., 2016. Afetlerde psikososyal hizmetler: Marmara ve Van Depremleri karşılaştırmalı analizi, İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(8-9), 183-197.
5. Ardalan A., Mazaheri M., Vanrooyen M., Mowafi H., Nedjat S., Naieni K.H., Russel M., 2011. Post-disaster quality of life among older survivors five years after the Bam earthquake: implications for recovery policy, Ageing & Society, 31(2), 179-196, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X10000772.
6. Atanassov K.T., Stoeva S., 1986. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy sets and Systems, 20(1), 87-96, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3.
7. Atar M., Ince O., Tas O.F., Ozmen A., Sayin E., 2024. Investigation of the Damage Conditions of Reinforced Concrete Buildings and Steel Structures in Malatya Province Following the February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş, Turk Deprem Arastirma Dergisi, 6(1), 60-80, https://doi.org/10.46464/tdad.1394039.
8. Aydın A., Yüceer M., Ulugergerli E.U., Caner C., 2024. Improving food security as disaster relief using intermediate moisture foods and active packaging Technologies, Applied Food Research, 4(1), 100378, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afres.2023.100378.

9. Coyne I.T., 1997. Sampling in Qualitative Research, Purposeful and Theoretical Sampling; Merging or Clear Boundaries?, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(3), 623-630.
10. Çakır M.A., Mercan Y., İçyer N.C., Bozkurt F., 2025. Post-disaster food safety and food security: An example of the Türkiye earthquake, Food Sec., 17, 671-685, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-025-01539-3.
11. Dal Zilio L., Ampuero J.P., 2023. Earthquake doublet in Turkey and Syria, Communications Earth & Environment, 4(71), 1-4, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00747-z.
12. Díaz D., Paniagua P., Larroulet C., 2024. Earthquakes and the wealth of nations: The cases of Chile and New Zealand, arXiv.org.
13. Dogulu C., Ikizer G., Karanci A.N., 2021. A psychosocial perspective on community resilience and preparedness in the context of earthquakes in Turkey, Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 501(1), 405-423, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP501-2019-110.
14. Duruel M., 2023. Social service practices in disaster: 6 February earthquake hatay case, OPUS Journal of Society Research, 20(56), 1141-1152, https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.1385721.
15. Ecer F., Böyükaslan A., Hashemkhani Zolfani S., 2022. Evaluation of cryptocurrencies for investment decisions in the era of Industry 4.0: a borda count-based intuitionistic fuzzy set extensions EDAS-MAIRCA-MARCOS multi-criteria methodology, Axioms, 11(8), 404, https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11080404.
16. Ertan G., 2020. Civil society and disaster management: case of Marmara earthquake, Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(76), 2044-2056, https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.585089.
17. He L., Dominey-Howes D., Aitchison J.C., Lau A., Conradson D., 2021. How do post-disaster policies influence household-level recovery? A case study of the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquake sequence, New Zealand. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 60, 102274, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102274.
18. Keskin A., Kıraçlı Leblebicioğlu N., Keskin A., Leblebicioğlu B., 2025. Examining the criteria affecting corporate social responsibility in businesses from the consumer perspective using the Pythagorean Fuzzy Entropy Technique, Sosyoekonomi, 33(64), 183-203, https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2025.02.08.
19. Kıraç F.Ç., 2024. Deprem bölgesindeki bireylerde sosyal desteğin genel sağlık durumu üzerine etkisi, Ekev Akademi Dergisi, (100), 188-198, https://doi.org/10.17753/sosekev.1563125.
20. Koç M., Yalçın S., 2023. Afetlerde krize müdahale: Kahramanmaraş Depremi’nde Aile ve Sosyal Hizmetler Bakanlığı’nın çalışmaları, Uluslararası Sosyal Hizmet Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 93-105, https://doi.org/10.57114/jswrpub.1257945.
21. Koçak H., Kuday A.D., Kınık K., Çalışkan C., Çelebi İ., Açıksarı K., 2025. Evaluating the Turkish Red Crescent’s (Türk Kızılay) disaster response: insights from the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes, BMC public health, 25(1), 783, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21950-x.
22. Kwiatek G., Martínez-Garzón P., Becker D., Dresen G., Cotton F., Beroza G.C., Bohnhoff M., 2023. Months-long seismicity transients preceding the 2023 MW 7.8 Kahramanmaraş earthquake, Türkiye. Nature Communications, 14, 7534, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42419-8.
23. Liang Y., Cao R., 2015. Employment assistance policies of Chinese government play positive roles! The impact of post-earthquake employment assistance policies on the health-related quality of life of Chinese earthquake populations, Social Indicators Research, 120(3), 835-857, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0620-z.
24. Lin L.G., Xu L.Z., Wang J.Y., 2005. Multi-criteria fusion decision-making method based on vague set, Computer Engineering, 31(5), 11-13.
25. Margesson R., Taft-Morales M., 2010. Haiti earthquake: crisis and response. congressional research service, In Library of Congress, Washington DC.
26. Özbilgin M., Erbil C., Demirbağ K.Ş., Demirbağ O., Tanriverdi V., 2023. Afet yönetiminde sorumluluğun yeniden inşası: Deprem, sosyal dramalar, sosyal politikalar, Sosyal Mucit Academic Review, 4(1), 71-112, https://doi.org/10.54733/smar.1253256.
27. Özdemir D., Asan G., 2024. 2023. Kahramanmaraş Depremi sonrası deprem bilincinin sorgulanmasına ilişkin çalışma, Euroasia Journal of Mathematics, Engineering, Natural & Medical Sciences, 11(32), 66-80, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11845514.
28. Peng L., Li Q., Deng W., Liu Y., 2021. What promotes post-earthquake economic recovery: The role of counterpart assistance policy after the Wenchuan ms 8.0 earthquake, China. Sage Open, 11(3), 21582440211033573, https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211033573.
29. Pu G., Chang-Richards A., Wilkinson S., Potangaroa R., 2021. What makes a successful livelihood recovery? A study of China’s Lushan earthquake, Natural Hazards, 105(3), 2543-2567, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04412-y.
30. Puška A., Nedeljković M., Pamučar D., Božanić D., Simić V., 2024. Application of the new simple weight calculation (SIWEC) method in the case study in the sales channels of agricultural products, MethodsX, 13, 102930, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2024.102930.
31. Sehnbruch K., Agloni N., Imilan W., Sanhueza C. 2016. Social policy responses of the Chilean state to the earthquake and tsunami of 2010, Latin American Perspectives, 44(4), 24-40, https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X1664895.
32. Seto M., Nemoto H., Kobayashi N., Kikuchi S., Honda N., Kim Y., Kelman I., Tomita H., 2019. Post-disaster mental health and psychosocial support in the areas affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake: A qualitative study, BMC psychiatry, 19, 261, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2243-z.
33. Şenol Balaban M., Doğulu C., Akdede N., Akoğlu H., Karakayalı O., Yılmaz S., Yılmaz S., Ajobiwe T., Güzel S., İkizler G., Akın M., Ünal Y., Karancı A.N., 2025. Emergency response, and community impact after February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş Pazarcık and Elbistan Earthquakes: reconnaissance findings and observations on affected region in Türkiye, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 23, 1053-1081, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-01867-3.
34. Tan M.L., Becker J.S., Stock K., Prasanna R., Brown A., Kenney C., Lambie E., 2022. Understanding the social aspects of earthquake early warning: A literature review, Frontiers in Communication, 7, 939242, https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.939242.
35. Tapan M.G., 2023. Kahramanmaraş Depremleri sonrası afet yönetiminde sosyal hizmet uygulamaları, Yedi Aralık Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2(1), 18-30.
36. Tripathi D.K., Nigam S.K., Rani P., Shah A.R., 2023. New intuitionistic fuzzy parametric divergence measures and score function-based CoCoSo method for decision-making problems, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 6(1), 535-563, https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame0318102022t.
37. Varolgüneş F.K., 2021. Success factors for post‐disaster permanent housing: example of Turkish Earthquakes, Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 11(1), 115-130, https://doi.org/10.7456/11101100/007.
38. Xu Z., 2007. Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators, IEEE Transactions on fuzzy systems, 15(6), 1179-1187, https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2006.890678.
39. Yalçın G.C., Limon E.G., Kara K., Limon O., Gürol P., Deveci M., Demirayak Ö., Tomášková H., 2025. A hybrid decision support system for transport policy selection: A case study on Russia's Northern Sea route in Artic region. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 98, 102171, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2025.102171.
40. Zeng S., Chen S.M., Kuo L.W., 2019. Multiattribute decision making based on novel score function of intuitionistic fuzzy values and modified VIKOR method, Information Sciences, 488, 76-92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.03.018.