27
Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2020/1/26

Corresponding author: boduralper@yandex.com

An Investigation on
Post-Disaster Housing
Resident Satisfaction
in Subaşı After the
Marmara Earthquake Received 2019/07/29

Accepted after
revision
2020/01/17

Journal of Sustainable
Architecture and Civil Engineering
Vol. 1 / No. 26 / 2020
pp. 27-35
DOI 10.5755/j01.sace.26.1.22465

An Investigation
on Post-Disaster
Housing Resident
Satisfaction in Subaşı
After the Marmara
Earthquake

JSACE 1/26

http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.sace.26.1.22465

Alper Bodur
Ondokuz Mayıs University, Faculty of Architecture, Ilkadım, Samsun, 55100, Turkey

This paper is the result of a survey that aims to learn the perceptions and evaluations of the people living
in permanent residences after the Marmara Earthquake. In doing so, it guides the decision-makers and
researchers about the features that should be in the planning stage of permanent residences and to
bring out some points that they should take into account in the future. Within the extent of the study,
permanent houses which have been built in Subaşı Village, Yalova, Turkey have been analyzed in the
meaning of post-earthquake housing applications after the Marmara earthquake on 17 August 1999.
In the research, the planning of the houses built in Subaşı Village, the overall evaluations about
the design, the principles of entitlement, the planning method of the permanent houses, and the
demographic features of the householders are evaluated. For this reason, a questionnaire was created
to understand the thoughts of the respondents. In this sense, users’ satisfaction was examined through
the survey which based on interviews with the householders. Within the questionnaire, the users have
answered some questions such as demographic characteristics, economic conditions, and the degree
of previous house satisfaction, the physical, social, environmental features of the permanent houses,
social relations, and general perceptions. In doing this, users were asked to evaluate the positive and
negative aspects of the project.
One of the most critical problems in the area is transportation. On the other hand, problems have also
emerged in the social relations of people settled in permanent residences after a physically destructive
earthquake. In general, participants have definite opinions about the houses on earthquake resilience,
size, and location of residential interiors, visual privacy, and lighting. Also, they have negative notions
about auditory privacy, heating, transportation to the city center, relations with relatives, problem-
solving with neighbors, municipal services. As a result of the research, it is observed that the permanent
residential areas in Subaşı could not unite with the existing city. The findings suggest that the permanent
residences in the research area produced for the people who suffered from the earthquake have not
been able to meet the needs of the households sufficiently. Besides, looking at the results of the study
from a broad perspective, it is necessary to evaluate the subject holistically so that the permanent
houses do not create new problems for the despairing households.

Keywords: earthquake, post-disaster housing, residential satisfaction.

Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2020/1/26
28

Turkey is one of the countries suffering from earthquakes concerning its geological and topo-
graphical features (Limoncu and Bayulgen, 2005). The country has had 285 medium and large
quakes in which 100,000 people missed their lives, 170,000 people were wounded, and 650,000
housing has experienced severe destruction within the years 1900-2010 (Pampal and Ozmen,
2015; Yamalı et al., 2015). The most devastating one was an earthquake which emerged on 17
August 1999 in the Marmara Region of Turkey. The quake provoked a tremendous loss of life and
assets, corrupted the social and financial structures of the country in an almost irreparable way
and gained its way into one of the most devastating earthquakes of history records (Oztekin and
Yıldırım, 2015). According to the Turkish Prime Ministry Crisis Management Center, the earth-
quake caused the death of 17.479 people and 43,953 wounded (Ozmen, 2000).

The centers of İstanbul, Kocaeli, Sakarya, Bolu, Bursa, Zonguldak, Eskişehir and Yalova provinces
influenced significantly by the quake (Tas et al., 2011). The earthquake further damaged 213,843
housing blocks which are the most significant number of dwelling units demolished by an earth-
quake in the devastated areas in Turkey (Ganapati, 2013). Fig. 1 shows the position of regions
corrupted on 17 August Marmara Earthquake.

Introduction

Fig. 1
The position of

regions corrupted on
17 August Marmara
Earthquake (Source:

Kadıoglu, 2005)

2015). The most devastating one was an earthquake which emerged on 17 August 1999 in the Marmara
Region of Turkey. The quake provoked a tremendous loss of life and assets, corrupted the social and
financial structures of the country in an almost irreparable way and gained its way into one of the most
devastating earthquakes of history records (Oztekin and Yldrm, 2015). According to the Turkish
Prime Ministry Crisis Management Center, the earthquake caused the death of 17.479 people and
43,953 wounded (Ozmen, 2000).
The centers of İstanbul, Kocaeli, Sakarya, Bolu, Bursa, Zonguldak, Eskişehir and Yalova provinces
influenced significantly by the quake (Tas et al., 2011). The earthquake further damaged 213,843
housing blocks which are the most significant number of dwelling units demolished by an earthquake
in the devastated areas in Turkey (Ganapati, 2013). Figure 1 shows the position of regions corrupted on
17 August Marmara Earthquake.

Fig. 1. The position of regions corrupted on 17 August Marmara Earthquake (Source: Kadoglu, 2005)

However, many problems come into being. The people whose houses demolished or heavily damaged
had some problems such as economic, social, housing etc. For instance, the government built many
permanent houses in the Marmara Region. Indeed, all over the world, the states reveal various methods
to cope with the housing problem which occurs after earthquakes (Tas et al., 2007). According to
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1998), there are four distinct extending phases after disasters
in the housing improvement method: (1) spontaneous shelter (first 72 hours), (2) emergency shelter
(first 60 days), (3) temporary housing (first year and beyond) and (4) permanent housing FEMA, 1998).
The short and long-term housing recovery is thus a crucial viewpoint of post-disaster rebuilding
(Freeman, 2004; Mukherji, 2015).
Permanent housing is the last stage to afford long-term permanent housing solutions for disaster
victims (FEMA, 1998). Permanent housing, post-disaster housing, in other words, is named by United
Nations (1982) as housing policies and applications following a disaster for joining the urgent,
temporary and permanent sheltering requirements of the survivors of the disaster (UN, 1982). Another
definition of post-disaster housing by the Disaster and Emergency Management Authority of Turkey
(AFAD) is that it is a lawful residence built by state or particular organizations for those who
experienced radical destruction from disasters (AFAD, 2014).
Permanent houses are not houses constructed in a very different way from those produced before the
quake. Nevertheless, one of the most significant exceptions is that post-disaster housing is built very
fast and supports to respond to the regular way of living situations. As it should be in residential

However, many problems come into being. The people whose houses demolished or heavily dam-
aged had some problems such as economic, social, housing etc. For instance, the government
built many permanent houses in the Marmara Region. Indeed, all over the world, the states reveal
various methods to cope with the housing problem which occurs after earthquakes (Tas et al.,
2007). According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (1998), there are four distinct ex-
tending phases after disasters in the housing improvement method: (1) spontaneous shelter (first
72 hours), (2) emergency shelter (first 60 days), (3) temporary housing (first year and beyond) and
(4) permanent housing FEMA, 1998). The short and long-term housing recovery is thus a crucial
viewpoint of post-disaster rebuilding (Freeman, 2004; Mukherji, 2015).

Permanent housing is the last stage to afford long-term permanent housing solutions for disas-
ter victims (FEMA, 1998). Permanent housing, post-disaster housing, in other words, is named
by United Nations (1982) as housing policies and applications following a disaster for joining the
urgent, temporary and permanent sheltering requirements of the survivors of the disaster (UN,
1982). Another definition of post-disaster housing by the Disaster and Emergency Management
Authority of Turkey (AFAD) is that it is a lawful residence built by state or particular organizations
for those who experienced radical destruction from disasters (AFAD, 2014).

29
Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2020/1/26

Permanent houses are not houses constructed in a very different way from those produced before
the quake. Nevertheless, one of the most significant exceptions is that post-disaster housing is
built very fast and supports to respond to the regular way of living situations. As it should be in
residential buildings manufactured under natural circumstances, many factors such as cultural,
environmental and economic factors should be planned in post-disaster housing.

Permanent houses are to build for the psychologically, culturally and economically affected people
whose expectations of the built environment in which they will live for an extended period as well
as fitting the housing needs (Tas et al., 2007). Within the extent of the study, permanent houses
which have been built in Subaşı Village, Yalova, Turkey have been analyzed in the meaning of
post-earthquake housing applications after the Marmara earthquake on 17 August 1999. Further-
more, overall evaluations are made about the satisfaction of the houses before the quake, the plan
and construction phases of the permanent houses, the demographic features of the participants.
Within the context, this article aims to guide the decision-makers and researchers about the fea-
tures that should be in the planning stage of permanent residences and to bring out some points
that they should take into account in the future.

Methodology
In the study, it is aimed to learn the perceptions and evaluations of the people living in permanent
residences after the Marmara Earthquake about their permanent residences. The field of the study
is the permanent residences built in Subaşı Village, Yalova regarding that Yalova was the place
where the loss of life and property was the most intense after the earthquake of August 17, 1999.
The sample was randomly chosen from the dwellings.

The questionnaire was created to understand the feelings of the householders. After selecting
the sample and designing the questionnaire, a total of 17 face-to-face interviews were started.
Although the sample size seems to be relatively small, the findings provide sufficient statistical
information about the overall satisfaction of the respondents.

Within the questionnaire, the users have answered some questions such as demographic charac-
teristics, economic conditions, the degree of previous house satisfaction, the physical, social, en-
vironmental features of the permanent houses, social relations, and general perceptions. In doing
so, users were asked to evaluate the positive and negative aspects of the project. As aforemen-
tioned, the case study area is Subaşı permanent residences in Yalova province which is located in
the east shoreline of Marmara Sea. Fig. 2 shows the location of Subaşı permanent residences site
plan. As the smallest city in Turkey with a complete area of 847 km² (Marka, 2010), it is influenced
by the seismic moves towards the forearms of the North Anatolian fault band (Url-1).

Following the 1999 Marmara quake, 2,504 people died, and 6,042 people were injured in Yalo-
va. 9.462 houses and 727 workplaces severely; 7.917 houses and 1.036 workplaces moderately;

Fig. 2
Map of Turkey
showing the location
of Subaşı permanent
residences site plan

buildings manufactured under natural circumstances, many factors such as cultural, environmental and
economic factors should be planned in post-disaster housing.
Permanent houses are to build for the psychologically, culturally and economically affected people
whose expectations of the built environment in which they will live for an extended period as well as
fitting the housing needs (Tas et al., 2007). Within the extent of the study, permanent houses which
have been built in Subaş Village, Yalova, Turkey have been analyzed in the meaning of post-
earthquake housing applications after the Marmara earthquake on 17 August 1999. Furthermore,
overall evaluations are made about the satisfaction of the houses before the quake, the plan and
construction phases of the permanent houses, the demographic features of the participants. Within the
context, this article aims to guide the decision-makers and researchers about the features that should be
in the planning stage of permanent residences and to bring out some points that they should take into
account in the future.
Methodology
In the study, it is aimed to learn the perceptions and evaluations of the people living in permanent
residences after the Marmara Earthquake about their permanent residences. The field of the study is the
permanent residences built in Subaş Village, Yalova regarding that Yalova was the place where the
loss of life and property was the most intense after the earthquake of August 17, 1999. The sample was
randomly chosen from the dwellings.
The questionnaire was created to understand the feelings of the householders. After selecting the
sample and designing the questionnaire, a total of 17 face-to-face interviews were started. Although the
sample size seems to be relatively small, the findings provide sufficient statistical information about the
overall satisfaction of the respondents.
Within the questionnaire, the users have answered some questions such as demographic characteristics,
economic conditions, the degree of previous house satisfaction, the physical, social, environmental
features of the permanent houses, social relations, and general perceptions. In doing so, users were
asked to evaluate the positive and negative aspects of the project. As aforementioned, the case study
area is Subaş permanent residences in Yalova province which is located in the east shoreline of

Fig. 2. Map of Turkey showing the location of Subaş permanent residences site plan

Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2020/1/26
30

12.685 houses and 1.881 workplaces were slightly damaged (Ozmen, 2000). Fig. 3 shows the
earthquakes around Yalova between the years 1900 and 2013.

Fig. 3
Earthquakes around

Yalova between the
years 1900 and 2013

(Source: Kurt ve
Haybat, 2014)

Fig. 2. Map of Turkey showing the location of Subaş permanent residences site plan

Following the 1999 Marmara quake, 2,504 people died, and 6,042 people were injured in Yalova.
9.462 houses and 727 workplaces severely; 7.917 houses and 1.036 workplaces moderately; 12.685
houses and 1.881 workplaces were slightly damaged (Ozmen, 2000). Figure 3 shows the earthquakes
around Yalova between the years 1900 and 2013.

Fig. 3. Earthquakes around Yalova between the years 1900 and 2013 (Source: Kurt ve Haybat, 2014)

Following the earthquake, the Turkish administration started to tackle housing regeneration to provide
units to homeowners (Ganapati, 2013). Subsequently, the Project Management Unit was set up for the
construction of the permanent houses supported by external sources (Tas et al., 2011). After the quake,
a total of 43,053 permanent houses were constructed in different provinces and districts, in 27 various
settlement areas (18 of Turkey’s Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, the remaining 9 of the
Prime Ministry Project Implementation Unit) (Tas et al., 2011; Erten, 2003). In Subaş, Yalova 3002
permanent houses were constructed to settle 12.000 people.

Following the earthquake, the Turkish administration started to tackle housing regeneration to
provide units to homeowners (Ganapati, 2013). Subsequently, the Project Management Unit was
set up for the construction of the permanent houses supported by external sources (Tas et al.,
2011). After the quake, a total of 43,053 permanent houses were constructed in different provinces
and districts, in 27 various settlement areas (18 of Turkey’s Ministry of Public Works and Settle-
ment, the remaining 9 of the Prime Ministry Project Implementation Unit) (Tas et al., 2011; Erten,
2003). In Subaşı, Yalova 3002 permanent houses were constructed to settle 12.000 people.

Fig. 4
A Subaşı

permanent
residence

(Source:
personal
archives)

Fig. 4. A Subaş permanent residence (Source: personal archives)

While six housing types were built after the Marmara earthquake, only two different housing types
were constructed in Subaş. The former model has 12 units, and the latter has 6. A photo from Subasi
permanent apartments is shown in Figure 4. Both block prototypes are comprised of a ground floor and
two floors, 95 m2 residential area, three rooms, and one living room.

Fig. 5. A floor plan of Subaş permanent houses (Source: personal archives)

The contract for the projects was on 16 06 2000. The area was delivered to the constructors by the
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement on 28 06 2002. Hence, the dwellings, which are planned to be
finished in about five months, can be completed in about nine months from the place of delivery.
Finally, 3002 houses were built in Subasi. Figure 5 shows a floor plan of the permanent residences.

While six housing types
were built after the Mar-
mara earthquake, only
two different housing
types were constructed
in Subaşı. The former
model has 12 units, and
the latter has 6. A photo
from Subasi permanent
apartments is shown in
Fig. 4. Both block proto-
types are comprised of
a ground floor and two
floors, 95 m2 residential
area, three rooms, and
one living room.

31
Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2020/1/26

Survey
Results

The contract for the
projects was on 16
06 2000. The area
was delivered to the
constructors by the
Ministry of Public
Works and Settle-
ment on 28 06 2002.
Hence, the dwellings,
which are planned to
be finished in about
five months, can be
completed in about
nine months from
the place of delivery.
Finally, 3002 houses
were built in Subasi.
Fig. 5 shows a floor
plan of the perma-
nent residences.

Fig. 5
A floor plan of Subaşı
permanent houses
(Source: personal
archives)

Fig. 4. A Subaş permanent residence (Source: personal archives)

Fig. 5. A floor plan of Subaş permanent houses (Source: personal archives)

In the study, the demographic characteristics of the participants, such as the number of people
in the household, the average monthly income were gathered. Also, thoughts about earthquake
resistance, interior size, indoor locations, also needed places, redundant areas, privacy, warm-
ing, transportation, neighborhood relations, the presence of green space, missing facilities, the
desired location and questions about general services were asked. At first, the participants an-
swered questions about demographic characteristics and pre-earthquake housing. According to
the results of the study, the participating families consisted of 2 (35.3%) and 4 (23.5%) people. Ac-
cording to the majority of respondents have earnings between 1000 TL and 1900 TL (equivalent
to US$ 187.68- US$ 356.59) (Url-2). Before the earthquake, they principally lived in the middle of
Altinova subprovince which is at the center of the Yalova province. Pre-earthquake housing was
mostly (64.7 %) apartment buildings. The extent of the pre-earthquake dwellings was mainly
among 100-130 m2 (41.2%) and 80-100 m2 (29.4%). 76.5% of the participants were owners of the
pre-earthquake residence. The apartments were severely damaged (52.9%) or destroyed (41.2)
in the quake.

Some of the families inhabiting in Subasi permanent housing come from Yalova and some from
Central and Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey. All participants were satisfied with the location
of their previous housing. Nearly all participants were satisfied with the size and the place of their
previous home.

When asked to the participants about earthquake resilience of their permanent residences, 94.1%
of the households think that their houses are resilient. In the evaluations on the size of the interi-
ors, the participants are satisfied with living room (88.2%), rooms (41.2%), kitchen (82.4%), bath-
room (94.1%), toilets (94.1%), and balconies (58.8%). When asked about the location of permanent
residences, they are satisfied with living room (%82.4), rooms (94.1%), kitchen (82.4%), bathroom
(88.2%), toilets (94.1%), balconies (70.6%).

The participants indicated that they need a storehouse (58.8%), and a big bathroom (5.9%). Some
said that there is no need for extra space (35.3%). Most of the items they could bring from their old

Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2020/1/26
32

Evaluation

houses (70.6%) were appropriate to fit into permanent housing. Participants often wanted to live
in their previous houses (82.4%) if there were any possibility.

88.2% of the families believe that visible confidentiality was realized between residences while
70.6% of them believe that no audible isolation was provided. More than half of the participants
expressed that (70.6%) are not satisfied with warming. 64.7% of them responded that they are
satisfied with lighting and ventilation. Nearly all respondents do not complain about fitment. Half
of them have got difficulties to go to the city center. 94.1% of the participants have entrance to the
city or district center by minibus. More than half of the participants are going to the city center
rarely, the others almost every day.

Mainly, most of the respondents said the neighborhood relationships are well. Besides, the per-
centage of participants who endure their conversation with their kin and friends are low. Meetings
with neighbors to solve problems are very low at 5.9%. Nearly half of them is satisfied with the
green areas. All respondents said that there is a need for a hospital in the precinct.

Similarly, the participants also stated that there is a demand of shopping center (47.1%), business
center (41.2%), entertainment center (52.9%), mosque (29.4%) and sports hall (52.9%) in the loca-
tion. All the participants noted that the waste is not taken in time. So, they are mostly (82.4%) not
satisfied with the municipality services.

In general, all of the participants were satisfied with the location and size of their old houses.
However, almost half of the permanent residences do not like the size of the rooms and balconies
of the permanent housing. They are not satisfied with the location of the balconies. The most im-
portant reason for this is that there is no user participation in the planning phase of the project. In
permanent residences, they need a separate area such as a warehouse. The point that residential
structures do not have flexible designs does not allow the housing units to be converted into vi-
able needs. Houses do not hold the chance to enlarge if demanded. It is an essential problem for
families who want to experience old living conditions and comfort.

Most of the participants could be able to fit their old belongings in their permanent residences. It
can be said that this situation is caused by necessity when the losses of the people whose houses
are destroyed are taken into consideration in the economic conditions after the earthquake. Sat-
isfied with visual privacy, participants experience problems with auditory privacy and the heating
system of the house. The main reason for this is the permanent housing construction system.
The houses were built with a tunnel formwork system for quick completion. As a result, auditory
problems occurred in buildings. The state, which was under pressure to relocate the people whose
houses were destroyed after the earthquake, wanted to construct the houses as soon as possible.
As a result, the houses have been built more rapid and economical in construction methods, thus
resulted in a compromise on quality.

One of the most critical problems in permanent housing is the transportation problem. The dis-
tance of the area to the city center is an essential problem for the households who want to main-
tain their old habits. The distance provides a living for the households below the old living stan-
dards. In this sense, permanent residences do not provide the expected benefits.

On the other hand, problems have also emerged in the social relations of people settled in perma-
nent residences after a physically destructive earthquake. For instance, in case of a collective de-
cision to solve the problems in the building, adequate communication with the neighbors cannot
be ensured, and participation in the meeting is insufficient. There is also a decrease in the relations
and communication of the participants with their relatives. Besides, participants are not satisfied
with the amount of green space in permanent residences, which are more rural than in the city
center. The participants think that the municipality does not provide adequate services to perma-
nent residences. However, the presence of municipal services has vital significance for improving
the quality of life of people residing in permanent residences.

33
Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2020/1/26

Fig. 6 shows the overall satisfaction with the factors related to the survey. In general, participants
have definite opinions about their new houses on earthquake resistance, size, and location of
residential interiors, visual privacy, and lighting, Additionally, they have negative thoughts about
auditory privacy, heating, transportation to the city center, relations with relatives, problem-solv-
ing with neighbors, municipal services. These findings suggest that the permanent residences
produced for the people who suffered from the earthquake have not been able to meet the needs
of the households sufficiently.

Fig. 6
Overall comparison
of the factors

Fig. 6. Overall comparison of the factors

Figure 6 shows the overall satisfaction with the factors related to the survey. In general, participants
have definite opinions about their new houses on earthquake resistance, size, and location of residential
interiors, visual privacy, and lighting, Additionally, they have negative thoughts about auditory
privacy, heating, transportation to the city center, relations with relatives, problem-solving with
neighbors, municipal services. These findings suggest that the permanent residences produced for the
people who suffered from the earthquake have not been able to meet the needs of the households
sufficiently.

Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2020/1/26
34

Acknow-
ledgment

Disasters are one of the most critical issues to deal with. Various rehabilitative studies are carried
out for families affected by disasters to return to normal living conditions. Central and local gov-
ernments have initiated many activities to prevent specific problems such as housing related to
disasters. One of the regenerative actions of the governments is to construct post-disaster hous-
ing after a catastrophic disaster. Post-disaster housing is essential to vulnerable families so that
all will be capable of returning to a suitable living condition as before the disaster.

Nevertheless, as permanent houses are built very fast, it is crucial that the living standard of
permanent housing should be suitable with the prior usage of the users. In this sense, post-use
evaluations of permanent housing are getting a value to understand the issue. Within the scope,
permanent residences in Subaşı Village, Yalova Province in Turkey have been reviewed in the
study. This study was aimed to determine the characteristics that contribute to user satisfaction in
the selected area. In doing so, a survey was carried out in the field, and user satisfaction was tried
to be revealed. After the survey, some results emerged to evaluate the permanent residences on
the area.

One of the most important results of the study is that the post-disaster houses in Subası cannot
unite with the existing city, thus reducing the quality of life of the householders. The householders
have had to adapt to a different culture, even within the same city. For this reason, it is inevitable
to build permanent housing areas in the process of integration with the existing city in the broader
frame.

More significantly, the affected householders could not have the opportunity to participate in the
project during the planning and design phases. Houses have not been created in a way to answer
the real needs of users. It means that the needs of households have not been appropriately ad-
dressed during the planning and design of houses. Accordingly, user participation in residential
planning after a disaster is a crucial requirement for future housing projects.

In conclusion, looking at the results of the study from a broad perspective, it can be said that any
mistakes made in the planning stage of the post-disaster housing cause dilemmas in practice. In
this regard, it is necessary to evaluate the subject holistically so that the permanent houses do not
create new problems for the despairing households.

Conclusion

This article is based on the presentation of An Assessment on Housing Satisfaction in Post Disas-
ter Housing: Yalova Subasi Case presented at the 5th International Conference S.ARCH-2018. The
author wishes to thank the respondents who helped him in the survey.

References AFAD, Explanatory disaster management terms
dictionary, Disaster and Emergency Management
Authority, Ankara, Turkey, 2014.

Erten, G, What is the place of quake housings in our
design and planning culture?, Mimarlık, 309, (2003), 48.

FEMA, A Housing recovery strategy for a new Ma-
drid Earthquake, Draft report of the housing recove-
ry working group, A FEMA / Federal - CUSEC Initia-
tive, USA, 1998.

Freeman, P. K., Allocation of post-disaster recons-
truction financing to housing, Building Research and
Information, 32, (2004), 5, pp. 427-437. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0961321042000221016

Ganapati, N. E., Measuring the processes and out-
comes of post-disaster housing recovery: lessons
from Gölcük, Turkey, Nat. Hazards, 65, (2013), 3, pp.
1783-1799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-
0442-8

Kurt, S., and Haybat, H., Evaluation of location
selection in yalova in terms of geomorphologic fea-
tures and natural risks, Urban and Urbanization, pp.
673-688. Efe, R., Onay, T.T., Sharuho, I., Atasoy, E.
(Eds.), St. Kliment Ohridski University Press, Sofia,
Bulgaria, ISBN: 978-954-07-3772-0, 2014.

Limoncu, S. and Bayulgen, C., Türkiye’de afet son-
rası yaşanan barınma sorunları, YTU Faculty of Ar-

https://doi.org/10.1080/0961321042000221016
https://doi.org/10.1080/0961321042000221016
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0442-8
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0442-8

35
Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2020/1/26

About the
Author

chitecture E-Journal, 1, (2005), 1, pp. 18-27.

Marka, Yalova investment report, Eastern Marmara
Development Agency, Kocaeli, Turkey, 2010.

Mukherji, A., From tenants to homeowners: hou-
sing renters after disaster in Bhuj, India, Housing
Studies, 30, (2015), 7, pp. 1135-1157. https://doi.org
/10.1080/02673037.2015.1008423

Ozmen, B., Damages of 17 August 1999 İzmit Gulf
Earthquake, Turkish Earthquake Foundation, Anka-
ra, Turkey, 2000.

Oztekin, K. and Yıldırım, S.T., Building, constructed
regions and the earthquake in Kocaeli, e-Journal of
New World Sciences Academy Natural and Applied
Sciences, 2, (2007), 1, pp. 22-29.

Pampal, S. and Ozmen, B., Earthquakes are natural
disasters? - to cope with earthquakes, Efil Yayınevi
Yayınları, Ankara, Turkey, 2015.

Tas, N., Cosgun, N. And Tas, M., A qualitative eva-
luation of the earthquake permanent housings in
Turkey in terms of user satisfaction-Kocaeli, Gun-

dogdu Permanent Housing model, Building and En-
vironment, 42, (2007), 9, pp. 3418-3431. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.09.002

Tas, N., Tas, M. and Cosgun, N., Permanent housing
production process after 17 August 1999 Marmara
Earthquake in Turkey, International Journal of Strate-
gic Property Management, 15, (2011), 3, pp. 312-328.
https://doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2011.617863

UN, Shelter after disaster: guidelines for assistance,
Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Coordina-
tor (UNDRO), United Nations, New York, USA, 1982.

Url-1, http://sgdd.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/
2017/06/Yalova.pdf, data retrieved 26.03.2018.

Url-2, http://paracevirici.com, date retrieved
07.01.2019.

Yamalı, M. S., Akgün, Y. and Karaveli, A. S., An eva-
luation of emergency accommodation units after
earthquake, The Third International Conference on
Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, İzmir,
Turkey, 2015, pp.

ALPER BODUR

Asst. Prof. Dr.
Ondokuz Mayıs University, Faculty of Architecture

Main research area
Disaster management, post disaster housing, social housing, building sciences, fire safety.

Address
Faculty of Architecture, Ondokuz Mayıs University,
Guzel Sanatlar Kampusu, Ilkadim, 55139 Samsun, Turkey.
Tel. +903623121919 / 4768
E-mail: boduralper@yandex.com

https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2015.1008423
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2015.1008423
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.09.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.09.002
https://doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2011.617863