AFET SONRASI KALICI KONUT UYGULAMALARINDA BAŞARI FAKTÖRLERİNİN BELİRLENMESİ: TÜRKİYE DEPREMLERİ ÖRNEĞİ

Year 2021, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 115 - 130, 01.01.2021

Fatma Kürüm Varolgüneş

Abstract

Afet sonrasında oluşturulan yerleşimlerin sosyal, ekonomik ve fiziksel boyutlarının araştırılması, deprem bölgeleri için yeniden yapılanma önerileri sunulabilecektir. Yapılan bu çalışma ile uzun vadeli başarıyı etkileyen faktörler kullanıcı memnuniyeti dikkate alınarak irdelenmiştir. Elde edilen veriler çeşitli diyagram kullanımıyla belli sayıya indirgenmiş ve gruplanmıştır. Literatürden elde edilen nitel veriler, Türkiye’den seçilmiş dokuz deprem bölgesi üzerinde model eşleştirme ve içerik analizi tekniği ile analiz edilmiştir. Bu araştırma ile uzun vadeli (50 yıl gibi) memnuniyete (veya eksikliğe) etki eden göstergeleri ortaya koymak, yeni çalışmalara ışık tutacaktır. Yapılan araştırma sonucunda Türkiye’de, deprem sonrası yeniden yapılanmada, afetzedelerin kırsal kimliğinin, yaşam tarzının ve iş olanaklarının konut inşasında yeterince dikkate alınmadığı tespit edilmiştir. 1970 yılından 2020 yılına kadar geçen 50 yıl içerisinde yapılan afet konutlarının çoğunun yerel dokudan izler taşımadığı görülmektedir. Analiz sonuçları değerlendirildiğinde, yeni yerleşim alanları oluşturulurken çevresel işlevleri ve sosyo-ekonomik yapıyı bütünleştiren bir sistem yaklaşımı kullanmalıdır. Bu bütüncül yaklaşım, dayanıklı kalıcı ev üretimine, toplum temelli ölçütlerin de dâhil edilmesini sağlayacaktır.

Keywords

Afet yönetimi, Afet sonrası kalıcı konutlar, Yeniden yerleşim, Başarı faktörleri, Türkiye depremleri

SUCCESS FACTORS FOR POST‐DISASTER PERMANENT HOUSING: EXAMPLE OF TURKISH EARTHQUAKES

Abstract

Rebuilding suggestions for earthquake zones have been presented by investigating the social, economic and physical characteristics of the settlements formed after the disasters. In this study, firstly, a literature review was conducted in order to determine long-term satisfaction indicators for permanent housing use in resettlement areas. The data obtained are grouped with hierarchy and affinity diagrams. Qualitative data obtained from the literature were analyzed on nine settlements previously exposed to earthquakes in Turkey. With this research, determining the indicators that affect long-term satisfaction (such as 50 years) will contribute to new research. As a result, it has been determined that the identity, lifestyle and employment opportunities of the victims are not taken into account in housing construction in Turkey in post-earthquake reconstruction. It was observed that most of the disaster housings built in the 50 years between 1970 and 2020 do not carry the traces of the local texture. According to the results of the analysis, a system approach that integrates environmental functions and socio-economic structure should be used while creating new residential areas. This holistic approach will ensure that community-based indicators are also included in the production of permanent housing. This study offers an important contribution in terms of determination of indicators influencing long-term satisfaction in resettlement programs by drawing attention to physical, social, cultural and economic factors in terms of permanent housings built after earthquakes in Turkey.

Keywords

Disaster management, Post-disaster permanent housing, Resettlements, Success factors, Turkish earthquake

References

• Afad. (2018) All Earthquakes in Turkey, Disaster and Emergency Management Authority, https://www.afad.gov.tr/, Accessed date: 17 September 2018.
• Arslan H. (2007) Re-design, re-use and recycle of temporary houses. Building and Environment 42: 400-406.
• Aysan FY. (1985) The Erzurum‐Kars earthquake area revisited. Disasters 9: 23-31.
• Aysan Y and Oliver P. (1987) Housing and Culture after Earthquakes: A guide for future policy making on housing in seismic areas, Oxford: Oxford polytechnic.
• Baradan B. (2008) Review of Literature for the concept of post-disaster housing in Turkey. Gazi University Journal of Science 21: 43-49.
• Bilau AA, Witt E and Lill I. (2017) Analysis of measures for managing issues in post-disaster housing reconstruction. Buildings 7: 29.
• Boelhouwer P and van der Heijden H. (2018) The effect of earthquakes on the housing market and the quality of life in the province of Groningen, the Netherlands. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment: 1-10.
• Coburn A, Leslie J and Tabban A. (1984) Reconstruction and resettlement 11 years later: a case study of Bingöl Province, Eastern Turkey. Earthquake relief in less industrialized areas. International symposium. 49-56.
• Coburn A and Spence R. (2002) Earthquake protection, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
• Davidson CH, Johnson C, Lizarralde G, et al. (2007) Truths and myths about community participation in post-disaster housing projects. Habitat international 31: 100-115.
• Davoudi S and Madanipour A. (2015) Reconsidering localism, New York: Routledge.
• Dias NT, Keraminiyage K and DeSilva KK. (2016) Long-term satisfaction of post disaster resettled communities: The case of post tsunami–Sri Lanka. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 25: 581-594.
• Dikmen N and Elias-Ozkan ST. (2004) Post-Disaster Housing in Rural Areas of Turkey. Second International Conference on Post-Disaster Reconstruction in Developing Countries. Citeseer.
• Dikmen N and Elias-Ozkan ST. (2016) Housing after disaster: a post occupancy evaluation of a reconstruction project. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19: 167-178.
• Einali J, Yeganeh BM, Cheraghi M, et al. (2020) Evaluating the effects of reconstruction of the damaged villages in the 2002 earthquake in Avaj, Iran. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 43: 101373.
• Enginöz E. (2004) A study in post-disaster home environments: a comparative case study between people living in villages and in the town center of Dinar, Turkey. Second International Conference on Post-Disaster Reconstruction in Developing Countries.
• Enginöz EB and Ünlü A. (2010) The evaluation of design in post-disaster houses: the case of Afyon-Dinar İTÜDERGİSİ/a 5.
• Fallahi A. (2007) Lessons learned from the housing reconstruction following the Bam earthquake in Iran. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 22: 26.
• Félix D, Monteiro D, Branco JM, et al. (2015) The role of temporary accommodation buildings for post-disaster housing reconstruction. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 30: 683-699.
• Freeman PK. (2004) Allocation of post-disaster reconstruction financing to housing. Building Research & Information 32: 427-437.
• Gomaa B and Sakr N. (2015) Social Sustainability; Maintenance of Socio-Cultural Characteristics: A Case Study of El-Raml Station. European Journal of Sustainable Development 4: 203-203.
• Guri-Rozenblit S. (1989) Effects of a tree diagram on students' comprehension of main ideas in an expository text with multiple themes. Reading Research Quarterly: 236-247.
• Hamilton N. (2012) Post-disaster shelter: A studio-based response to emergency shelter in natural disaster zones. Sustainable futures: Architecture and urbanism in the global south, Kampala, Uganda 2730.
• Hayles CS. (2010) An examination of decision making in post disaster housing reconstruction. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 1: 103-122.
• İnal E and Ünlü A. (2009) Türkiye'de afet sonrası kalıcı konutlarda esneklik kavramının değerlendirilmesi. İTÜDERGİSİ/a 8.
• Ishiwatari M. (2014) Institution and governance related learning from the East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. In: (eds) SR (ed) Disaster Recovery. Disaster Risk Reduction (Methods, Approaches and Practices). Tokyo: Springer, 77-88.
• Johnson C. (2007) Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing after disasters: 1999 earthquakes in Turkey. Habitat international 31: 36-52.
• Karanci NA and Aksit B. (1999) Strengthening community participation in disaster management by strengthening governmental and non-governmental organisations and networks: A case study from Dinar and Bursa (Turkey). Australian Journal of Emergency Management, The 13: 35.
• Karunasena G and Rameezdeen R. (2010) Post‐disaster housing reconstruction: Comparative study of donor vs owner‐driven approaches. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 1: 173-191.
• Kennedy J, Ashmore J, Babister E, et al. (2008) The meaning of ‘build back better’: evidence from post‐tsunami Aceh and Sri Lanka. Journal of contingencies and crisis management 16: 24-36.
• Kılcı F, Kara BY and Bozkaya B. (2015) Locating temporary shelter areas after an earthquake: A case for Turkey. European journal of operational research 243: 323-332.
• Kürüm Varolgüneş F. (2019) Evaluation of vernacular and new housing indoor comfort conditions in cold climate – a field survey in eastern Turkey. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis 13: 207-226.
• Kürüm Varolgüneş F. (2020) Post-disaster permanent housing: the case of the 2003 Bingöl earthquake in Turkey.
• Lagorio HJ. (1990) Earthquakes: an architect's guide to nonstructural seismic hazar ds.
• Limoncu S and Bayülgen C. (2005) Türkiye’de afet sonrası yaşanan barınma sorunları. Megaron 1: 18.
• Manatunge JMA and Abeysinghe U. (2017) Factors affecting the satisfaction of post-disaster resettlers in the long term: A case study on the resettlement sites of tsunami-affected communities in Sri Lanka. Journal of Asian Development 3: 94-124.
• Oliver‐Smith A. (1991) Successes and failures in post‐disaster resettlement. Disasters 15: 12-23.
• Ophiyandri T, Amaratunga D and Keraminiyage K. (2016) Advantages and limitations of community-based post-disaster housing reconstruction projects. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 7: 420-431.
• Özkan S. (1972) Deprem Konutlarında Değişik Bir Seçenek: Köpük Kubbeler. Mimarlık Dergisi 3: 25-28.
• Peacock WG, Dash N, Zhang Y, et al. (2018) Post-disaster sheltering, temporary housing and permanent housing recovery. Handbook of Disaster Research. Springer, 569-594.
• Perera T, Weerasoori I and Karunarathne H. (2012) An evaluation of success and failures in Hambantota, Siribopura resettlement housing program: lessons learned. Sri Lanka Journal of Real Estate.
• Platt S and Drinkwater BD. (2016) Post-earthquake decision making in Turkey: Studies of Van and Izmir. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 17: 220-237.
• Quarantelli EL. (1995) Patterns of sheltering and housing in US disasters. Disaster Prevention and Management 4: 43-53.
• Sey Y and Tapan M. (1987) Afet Sonrasında Barınma ve Geçici Konut Sorunu Raporu. Yayınlanmamış Akademik Çalışma, İTÜ, İstanbul.
• Steinberg F. (2007) Housing reconstruction and rehabilitation in Aceh and Nias, Indonesia-Rebuilding lives. Habitat international 31: 150-166.
• Takesada N, Manatunge J and Herath IL. (2008) Resettler choices and long‐term consequences of involuntary resettlement caused by construction of Kotmale Dam in Sri Lanka. Lakes & Reservoirs: Research & Management 13: 245-254.
• Tas N, Cosgun N and Tas M. (2007) A qualitative evaluation of the after earthquake permanent housings in Turkey in terms of user satisfaction—Kocaeli, Gundogdu Permanent Housing model. Building and Environment 42: 3418-3431.
• UNDRO. (1982) Shelter After Disaster: Guidelines for Assistance, New York: Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Co-Ordinator,United Nations.
• Zetter R and Boano C. (2010) Space and place after natural disasters and forced displacement, Oxford and New York: Spon Press.