Speaker
Description
Introduction and Research Problem
Cities are increasingly at the forefront of compounding and cascading threats, where the accelerating effects of climate change combine with natural disasters. According to Wen et al. (2023), human-driven global surface temperatures increased by an estimated 1.1 °C between 1850-1900 and 2010-2019, with subsequent decades regularly setting warming records since 1850. Maintaining current emission paths shows that global warming could reach 1.5 degrees Celsius between 2030 and 2052 (Wen et al., 2023). Climate change, urbanization, increasing exposure to natural hazards, and disparities in people's coping capacity have all contributed to the recent rise in the frequency and magnitude of disasters. The destruction inflicted by disasters in vulnerable communities has led to a greater emphasis on boosting the efficiency and efficacy of post-disaster recovery efforts (Mannakkara & Wilkinson, 2013). Therefore, urban planners face extreme uncertainty in multi-hazard environments. In the past, spatial planning has struggled to manage overlapping crises, often separating long-term environmental policy from emergency response. The devastating February 2023 earthquakes in Türkiye mark a turning point for urban governance and spatial reconfiguration. At the center of the destruction, Kahramanmaraş is undergoing massive social and spatial reorganization, making it an essential case study for assessing post-disaster reconstruction models.
The key research issue addressed in this study is the structural and temporal gap between reactive post-disaster recovery operations and proactive climate resilience. Under crisis conditions, post-disaster reconstruction models usually prioritize rapid housing supply and immediate return to normal. However, the hurry to rebuild frequently ignores long-term climate projections. As a result, the quick rebuilding process may unintentionally reproduce pre-disaster physical and social vulnerabilities, resulting in an unequal distribution of new environmental risks across diverse metropolitan areas and communities. When reconstruction is viewed just as a time-bound physical recovery phase rather than a window of opportunity for systemic transformation aligned with Build Back Better (BBB) principles, cities are locked into non-resilient spatial patterns.
The ongoing recovery of Kahramanmaraş is characterized by the adoption of three distinct urban transformation models, which are reserve area transformation, TOKİ (new development areas), and on-site transformations, each with a unique approach to spatial governance, resource allocation, and risk management. However, a key gap exists in understanding how these localized transformation models accommodate for future uncertainties while also trying to include climate policy objectives. These models may ease the current housing issue, but without scenario-based design that defines various climatic futures, the reconstructed environment may be highly vulnerable to future heatwaves, water scarcity, or extreme weather occurrences. This research intends to bridge the gap between disaster recovery and climate resilience policy by critically examining post-disaster recovery efforts in Kahramanmaraş. This study investigates each of the transformation models, their adaptation to climate-resilience aspects, and seeks to develop a roadmap in light of BBB parameters for future risks that incorporates climate-policy viewpoints.
Conceptual Frameworks: Disaster Risk Reduction & Climate Resilience Nexus
Rapidly changing climate is expected to exacerbate risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth (Wen et al., 2023). Thus, climate change is projected to exacerbate current urban problems and vulnerabilities, putting further strain on already overloaded cities (Meerow & Stults, 2016). On the other hand, disasters are created by the interaction of social, political, economic, and environmental factors, as well as longer-standing political and social inequities that are more publicly exposed and reconfigured during and after a disaster (Aitsi-Selmi et al., 2015; Schubert, 2024). Therefore, improving climate resilience and disaster risk reduction are recognized as an important method for mitigating future dangers (Du et al., 2022). The conceptual foundation of this study is located at the junction of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Resilience (CR). Historically, urban planning and institutional governance have addressed these two areas separately. DRR has traditionally followed a reactive paradigm, with a focus on immediate hazard mitigation, emergency response, and the quick restoration of pre-disaster physical conditions. Disaster management consists of four stages of an emergency event: mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery. It also emphasizes the need of actively lowering risk and planning for disasters rather than simply responding to them (Begum et al., 2014; Dias et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2022). Climate resilience, on the other hand, works on a longer time period, with the goal of managing the deep, systemic uncertainties of slow climate shifts and extreme weather conditions. Thus, climate resilience strives to adapt to current or expected changes, whereas disaster risk reduction seeks to prevent future disasters and mitigate existing ones. However, both strategies basically aim to improve resilience and reduce vulnerability (Dias et al., 2021; Begum et al., 2014). In this context, the common and distinct aspects of climate resilience and disaster risk reduction have been investigated to find their integration elements.
Furthermore, different organizations at various levels support this system. The UNISDR and the UNFCCC are actively linking disaster risk reduction and climate resilience (Djalante & Thomalla, 2012). Driven by increasing disaster frequency, the 2005 World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Kobe recognized the vital need to integrate disaster risk management and climate resilience. This conceptual convergence was formalized by the Hyogo (2005-2015) and Sendai (2015-2030) Frameworks. These significant agreements encourage multidisciplinary techniques that integrate disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate action into larger sustainable development and poverty alleviation aims (Begum et al., 2014). Moreover, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) supports these global policies by carefully evaluating the most recent scientific and socioeconomic data to create integrated adaptation plans (Djalante & Thomalla, 2012).
Especially after the Sendai Framework, Build Back Better (BBB) approach come into forward to integrate DRR and CR. BBB is the use of the recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction phases following a disaster to increase national and community resilience by incorporating disaster risk reduction measures into the restoration of physical infrastructure and societal systems, as well as the revitalization of livelihoods, economies, and the environment (Dube, 2020; Toyoda, 2021; Neeraj, 2022; Landaeta & Richman, 2023; Ihsan et al., 2023). According to this definition, BBB does not refer to the immediate response phase following a disaster, but rather to the recovery strategy in stages ranging from early recovery to long-term reconstruction, and is viewed as an opportunity to make the communities to a higher level than before (Toyoda, 2021; Neeraj, 2022). Thus, integrating climate resilient measures into disaster recovery is seen as a tool to fight with the future possible cascading risks.
Methodology
To critically examine the research problem, a mixed-methods approach was employed. The analytical process commenced with a comprehensive literature review, which consist of disaster risk reduction, climate resilience, their integration, international frameworks and BBB approach. Subsequently, to investigate the reconstruction of Kahramanmaraş as a case study, field observations and in-depth interviews were conducted. Since the Kahramanmaraş earthquake occurred in 2023 and the rebuilding is an ongoing, dynamic process, data collection presents significant challenges. Consequently, gathering primary data on-site through field visits have significant importance. The spatial and developmental progress of Kahramanmaraş was systematically tracked through two distinct field studies conducted in 2025 and 2026. Furthermore, to gain a deeper understanding of the procedural dynamics, consultations were held with individuals from various institutions who possess specific expertise in this field. A total of 12 interviews were conducted—including 2 preliminary interviews—with participants purposefully selected as experts representing diverse organizational perspectives. In this context, interviews engaged local administrators, central government officials, construction companies, and neighborhood headman.
Following data collection, Build Back Better (BBB) parameters identified in the literature were evaluated through a climate resilience perspective to construct a 3-point Likert scale-based risk matrix. These parameters are including both structural resilience, community recovery and implementation dimentions to include all aspects. Each parameter was systematically assessed across three distinct urban transformation models: reserve areas, new developments, and on-site transformations. The analysis of the interviews has also been facilitated by classifying them according to parameters using the MAXQDA program. By cross-examining the field observations, collected primary data, and insights derived from the interviews within these specific models, the methodology ultimately aims to provide a holistic and comprehensive evaluation of the whole reconstruction process.
Results
The research findings show that the three post-disaster reconstruction models used in Kahramanmaraş differ significantly in structural resilience, socio-cultural recovery, ecological sensitivity, and governance. In the central reserve area transformation, significant structural resilience, financial recovery, and strict state auditing measures imposed by central institutions are displayed. Positive characteristics include project-funded infrastructure, the ability of property owners to remain in their original locations, and speedy implementation made possible by international collaborations. However, its rigidly centralized governance system frequently excludes local populations from decision-making processes. Socio-cultural recovery is noticeably weak, as newly planned living areas are drastically decreased and do not reflect Kahramanmaraş's local architectural tradition. Furthermore, changing in the plan of the area effect the whole ecological system, building along fault lines and a significant reduction in green area density threaten ecological planning.
TOKİ - new development strategy had the lowest overall performance of the models examined. While site selection process was speedy and tight state auditing was maintained, many projects remain fundamentally disconnected from the local environment. Their significant distance from the city center, the conversion of agricultural land into developed environments, and the imposition of generic architectural typologies with no local uniqueness have resulted in extremely low community approval. Although they offer alternate housing options, the lack of specific socio-cultural policies makes them less preferred among inhabitants.
Lastly, on-site transformation resulted in the highest level of integration with the BBB approachs especially with the success of stakeholder involvement and socio-cultural recovery perspectives. Community satisfaction is high due to government grants and loans, which allow residents to actively engage in reconstructing their own neighborhoods. Furthermore, ecological damage is minimized because construction takes place on existing metropolitan footprints. However, all of the model's main deficiencies are in governance and implementation. The lack of a standardized methodological guideline, a lack of clear supervision systems, and a complete reliance on private contractors make it difficult to measure structural resilience on a building basis. Temporary, reactive rules have slowed the development of long-term risk-reduction strategies.
Conclusion
The current reconstruction of Kahramanmaraş exemplifies that there is a need to integrate speedy disaster recovery and the long-term requirement of climate change adaptation. Comparing three spatial transformation reveals a highly fragmented governance landscape. While centralized, state-led approaches effectively prioritize speed and structural seismic safety, they frequently sacrifice ecological integrity and socio-cultural integration. In contrast, while decentralized on-site approaches encourage community involvement and preserve existing urban areas, they are severely restricted by legislative gaps and insufficient oversight. Importantly, none of these models actively incorporate future climate projections, collectively treating post-disaster recovery as a means to restore a pre-disaster status quo rather than a window.
To address the growing hazards of the 21st century, urban planning must go beyond deterministic, single-future scenarios. This research demonstrates that successfully bridging the theoretical and practical gap between Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Resilience (CR) requires the institutionalization of scenario-based planning. Policymakers and planners should proactively evaluate immediate reconstruction options against long-term uncertainties such as urban heat amplification, water scarcity, and extreme weather events by imagining many feasible future scenarios. Finally, overcoming extreme unpredictability necessitates a paradigm shift in urban administration. Post-disaster interventions must be viewed not as time-bound physical reconstruction projects, but as ongoing socio-ecological adaptations. Sustainable urban resilience can only be accomplished by spatial design that integrates strict structural auditing, localized climate policy, and participatory stakeholder involvement. Cities may ensure that rapid reconstruction does not create systemic vulnerabilities in the future by incorporating climate-responsive scenarios into the core of disaster recovery.
References
Aitsi-Selmi, A., Egawa, S., Sasaki, H., Wannous, C., & Murray, V. (2015). The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: Renewing the global commitment to people’s resilience, health, and well-being. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6(2), 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-015-0050-9
Begum, R. A., Sarkar, Md. S., Jaafar, A. H., & Pereira, J. J. (2014). Toward conceptual frameworks for linking disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 10, 362–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.10.011
Chen, N., Tang, X., & Liu, W. (2022). Urban disaster risk prevention and mitigation strategies from the perspective of climate resilience. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 2022(1). https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4907084
Dias, N., Amaratunga, D., Haigh, R., Clegg, G., & Malalgoda, C. (2021). Critical factors that hinder integration of CCA and DRR: Global perspective. In Handbook of Climate Change Management (pp. 1–22). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22759-3_124-1
Djalante, R., & Thomalla, F. (2012). Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in Indonesia. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 3(2), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1108/17595901211245260
Du, H., Dang, K. K., Nguyen, H. Q., & van Rijswick, H. F. M. W. (2022). A framework for reviewing laws and policies for climate resilience: The case of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 66(6), 1280–1304. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2026308
Dube, E. (2020). The build-back-better concept as a disaster risk reduction strategy for positive reconstruction and sustainable development in Zimbabwe: A literature study. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 43, 101401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101401
Ihsan, M., Marnani, C. S., & Bahar, F. (2023). Build back better: Rehabilitation and reconstruction after the Cianjur earthquake disaster. International Journal of Progressive Sciences and Technologies, 38(1), 435. https://doi.org/10.52155/ijpsat.v38.1.5244
Landaeta, E., & Richman, J. (2023). A model of build back better utilization: Long-term recovery groups and post-disaster housing recovery. Sustainability, 15(23), 16424. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316424
Mannakkara, S., & Wilkinson, S. (2013). Build back better principles for post‐disaster structural improvements. Structural Survey, 31(4), 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1108/ss-12-2012-0044
Meerow, S., & Stults, M. (2016). Comparing conceptualizations of urban climate resilience in theory and practice. Sustainability, 8(7), 701. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070701
Neeraj, S. (2022). A build back better assessment tool for post-disaster reconstruction and recovery [Doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland]. ResearchSpace@Auckland. https://hdl.handle.net/2292/58250
Schubert, J. (2024). Maintaining a city against nature: Climate adaptation in Beira. Buildings and Cities, 5(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.378
Toyoda, T. (2021). Defining and refining “build back better”: Variations and issues. Kobe University Monograph Series in Social Science Research, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5979-9_1
Wen, J., Wan, C., Ye, Q., Yan, J., & Li, W. (2023). Disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and their linkages with sustainable development over the past 30 years: A review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 14(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-023-00472-3