Yakın, Ö and Güncü, A. (2026) Post-disaster housing recovery models in Turkey: A case study of the 2020 İzmir seferihisar earthquake. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 17(2), pp. 239-257. ISSN 1759-5908
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to reveal how variations in site selection, beneficiary management, housing delivery, and social integration influenced the recovery performance of two post-disaster housing recovery models implemented after the 2020 İzmir Seferihisar Earthquake. By identifying their strengths and weaknesses, this study seeks to guide the development of more resilient, participatory and sustainable post-disaster housing strategies for future recovery efforts. Design/methodology/approach – This paper adopts a comparative case study approach to evaluate two post-disaster housing recovery models, In-Situ Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation by Relocation, implemented after the 2020 Izmir Seferihisar Earthquake. A mixed-methods strategy was used, combining quantitative analysis of official data with qualitative document analysis and literature review. The models were assessed across key criteria, including speed, social integration, economic sustainability, environmental impact and participatory governance. Findings – This study finds that while the Rehabilitation by Relocation model achieved faster housing delivery through large-scale new settlements, it weakened social ties and increased environmental pressures. In contrast, the In-Situ Rehabilitation model better preserved social networks and urban continuity but faced challenges related to slower implementation and limited housing production. Both models exhibited trade-offs between speed, social cohesion, economic sustainability and beneficiary satisfaction. The findings suggest that combining the strengths of both approaches could enhance the effectiveness, equity and resilience of future post-disaster housing recovery efforts. Originality/value – The findings provide original insights for policymakers and practitioners seeking to design more balanced and context-sensitive post-disaster recovery strategies, bridging the gap between legal structures and social needs in disaster-affected urban environments.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | earthquake; housing; in-situ rehabilitation; law frameworks; post-disaster recovery; rehabilitation by relocation |
| Index terms: | case study, governance, Turkey, satisfaction, recovery, document analysis, effectiveness, economic sustainability, in-situ, earthquake, post-disaster recovery, implementation, housing strategy, relocation, housing delivery, literature review, social network, strategy, practitioner, environmental impact, site selection, social ties, methodology, variation, integration, social cohesion, urban environment, housing, quantitative analysis |
| Subjects: | urban sustainability, data collection methods, business, data science, data analysis and analytics, project delivery, contractual condition, management, post-disaster and reconstruction, performance management, organizational analysis, sociology, environmental impact, practitioner, construction type, contractual arrangements, economic analysis, operations management, Geography, research methods, environmental hazards, housing and residential development, market analysis, building construction, cognitive psychology |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Geographical Context, Sustainability, Procurement, Urban Studies, Organizational Design, Contract Administration, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Governance, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here