Evaluation reveals design strategies enhance urban resilience and sustainability in post-earthquake resettlement.
Purpose This study aims to define key elements for creating sustainable urban living environments in earthquake-prone areas of Turkey and other developing countries, using expert assessments and student projects to develop a checklist for evaluating housing and urban design in affected resettlement areas. Design/methodology/approach In this study, the design and evaluation process for architectural projects focusing on “Sustainable Living in Earthquake Zones” was conducted by senior architecture students. The projects aimed to create livable, resilient urban spaces in disaster-affected areas in Turkey. Experts weighted 28 sub-criteria under the categories of functionality, aesthetic quality, social and cultural aspects and environmental aspects using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. The evaluations were aimed at identifying the best designs for sustainable and active urban living, with final scores reflecting a combination of criteria weighting and expert ratings. Findings In evaluating architectural designs for sustainable living in earthquake zones, functionality and environmental aspects were deemed most important by experts. The highest-rated design integrated public spaces and sustainability near the Asi River in Hatay. Other notable projects focused on blending traditional and modern elements, emphasizing community spaces and regional identity. Overall, designs highlighted functionality over aesthetics and demonstrated varied attention to environmental considerations. Originality/value This study pioneers a practical checklist for sustainable urban design in earthquake-prone areas by integrating expert assessments and student projects. This paper offers novel insights to advance urban resilience and sustainability in post-disaster resettlement contexts, providing a valuable framework applicable to Turkey and similar regions, bridging academic research with practical implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Varolgüneş et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: