From Vulnerability to Resilience: The Van Earthquake and Its Implications for Disaster-Informed Urban Planning

ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCES AND SUSTAINABLE APPROACHES: URBAN RESILIENCE Editors Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ October 15, 2025 Copyright © 2025 by İKSAD publishing house All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. Institution of Economic Development and Social Researches (The Licence Number of Publicator: 2014/31220) TÜRKİYE TR: +90 342 606 06 75 USA: +1 631 685 0 853 E mail: [email protected] www.iksadyayinevi.com It is responsibility of the author to abide by the publishing ethics rules. Iksad Publications – 2025© Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience ISBN: 978-625-378-337-2 Cover Design: Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ October 15, 2025 Ankara / Türkiye Size = 16x24 cm PREFACE Dear Professors and Colleagues, We are pleased bring to life that Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience, which was published as an e-book by IKSAD Publishing House with the editors Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU and Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ. This book project, entitled “Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience,” aims to address sustainability-oriented approaches to urban resilience from theoretical, methodological, and practical perspectives. The volume seeks to establish a multi-layered platform of discussion, ranging from the scale of individual buildings to the entirety of the urban fabric. Within this framework, it welcomes contributions from scholars and researchers working in architecture, urban design, landscape architecture, urban and regional planning, environmental engineering, and related disciplines. With the valuable contributions of our chapter authors working in the professional disciplines of landscape architecture, architecture, city and regional planning, urban design and sustainability, we have completed Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience book study has been completed with 24 book chapters. We would like to thank you, our esteemed authors, for their contributions to the preparation of the book. We would also like to thank the editorial board and IKSAD Publishing House. We wish to continue this process we have started in the coming years. In addition, we would like to express our sincere appreciation to Prof. Dr. Atila GÜL, the book coordinator of IKSAD Publishing House, for his guidance and support throughout the publication process. We hope that our book ‘Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience’ will be helpful to the readers. Best regards. 15.10.2025 EDITORS Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ EDITORS Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ AUTHORS The authors were listed in alphabetical order Alper ÇABUK Ayça GÜLTEN Ayşe ÖZYETGİN ALTUN Ayşe Özge ŞİMŞEK SOYSAL Ayşegül TANRIVERDİ KAYA Demet EROL Deniz DEMİRARSLAN Ebru Vesile ÖCALIR Eda ŞENTÜRK Elif Kübra ÖZTÜRK Emine BAYDAN Esra KESKİN Feran AŞUR Feyza Sena ŞENOCAK Filiz KARAKUŞ Furkan AKDEMİR Gencay ÇUBUK Gülşah BİLGE ÖZTÜRK Halil DUYMUŞ Hamza ALTAŞ Hande AKARCA İnci OLGUN Kemal Mert ÇUBUKÇU Kumru ÇILGIN Mehmet Akif IRMAK Mehmet Emin DAŞ Mehtap ÖZENEN KAVLAK Merve ALICI AKA Mesut GÜZEL Muhammed Akif AÇIKGÖZ Muhammed Emir GÖRAL Murat YEŞİL Olcay Türkan YURDUGÜZEL Özge DÜZGÜN EREKİNCİ Pervin YEŞİL Rabia Nurefsan ACIKGOZ Sedef ŞENDOĞDU Seher Simay KUŞOĞLU Serim DİNÇ Sevilay YILDIZ Sinem SEYHAN Şevval ERGİNDOĞAN Şuheda ALTUNOK Temuçin Göktürk SEYHAN Tuba Nur OLĞUN Tuna BATUHAN Ufuk Teoman AKSOY Yusuf Eminoğlu REVIEWER LIST The authors were listed in alphabetical order Aslıhan TIRNAKÇI Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Atila GÜL Süleyman Demirel University Ayşe Kalaycı ÖNAÇ İzmir Katip Çelebi University Bige ŞİMŞEK İLHAN İstanbul Medipol University Burcu YILMAZEL Eskişehir Technical University Eda KOÇAK Siirt University Ekrem BAHADIR Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University Elif KUTAY KARAÇOR İstanbul Technical University Hakan ARSLAN Ondokuz Mayıs University Hilal TURGUT Karadeniz Technical University Meliha AKLIBAŞINDA Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Murat AKTEN Süleyman Demirel University Nihan Sümeyye GÜNDOĞDU Atlas University Okan Murat DEDE Amasya University Ömer Lütfü ÇORBACI Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Selcen Nur Erikci Çelik Beykoz University Sibel AKTEN Isparta Unıversıty Of Applıed Scıences Sinem ÖZDEDE Pamukkale University Şeyma ŞENGÜR Ordu University Turgut KALAY Kütahya Dumlupınar University Tendü Hilal GÖKTUĞ Aydın Adnan Menderes University 71 1. Introduction In an era of rapid urban expansion and increasing natural disaster frequency, the need to develop resilient cities is undeniable. Earthquakes, in particular, threaten densely populated areas, with the potential to cause widespread destruction and economic losses in the billions. For instance, the 1999 Marmara Earthquake resulted in approximately 17,000 fatalities and an estimated economic cost of 10–15 billion USD for Turkey (Erdik, 2000, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) n.d.). Predicting or preventing the next major earthquake remains impossible. Urban resilience plays a pivotal role in enhancing cities’ capacity to cope with challenges arising from rapid urbanization and environmental change. Adapted from Holling’s (1973) ecology-based resilience concept, it refers to a city’s ability to anticipate, respond to, and recover from shocks and stresses (Meerow, Newell, & Stults, 2016, Ahern, 2011). Recent major earthquakes in Turkey have underscored the critical need for urban resilience. The October 23, 2011 Van-Erciş and November 9, 2011 Van-Edremit earthquakes, in particular, highlighted the devastating impacts on urban areas. Data from the National Seismology Observation Network, operated by AFAD, indicate that the main shock on October 23 released energy equivalent to approximately 33.2 Hiroshima atomic bombs, and when aftershocks are included, the total energy released reached the equivalent of about 37 atomic bombs (Güney, 2012, AFAD 2012). This article analyzes the Van earthquake within the framework of urban resilience. The resilience of physical and social systems is examined 72 through five key criteria: robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, adaptability, and rapidity. The analysis focuses on pre-earthquake measures, the planning process, and post-earthquake interventions. In the planning process of Van, the elements defined as the 4Rs by Bruneau et al. (2003) were analyzed. This analysis was integrated with the Key Dimensions and Characteristics of Urban Resilience identified by Ribeiro & Gonçalves (2019). 2. Research Methodology A systematic process was applied to conduct a comprehensive literature review on urban resilience. This process consisted of three stages: (i) searching online databases, (ii) analyzing data related to the Van earthquake, and (iii) examining spatial planning decisions in terms of urban resilience criteria. Academic databases were used to systematically select the articles reviewed in this study. Database searches employed keywords such as “Urban resilience,” “Resilient urban systems,” “Resilient cities,” “Resilience in cities,” and “seismic resistance,” along with related terms. For scientific articles, the review focused on the last 15 years (2010–2025), prioritizing relevance and selecting studies cited more than ten times. Technical documents were drawn from publications by relevant institutions on the Van earthquake, while spatial plans were obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization’s website. 3. Urban Resilience and Its Conceptual Framework The concept of resilience is widely applied across disciplines, from environmental studies to engineering, and from psychology to sociology and economics (Sharifi, & Yamagata, 2016). It generally encompasses 73 both strength and flexibility. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “resilience” refers to (i) the ability of an object to return to its original size and shape after deformation under stress, and (ii) the capacity to recover and adapt in the face of adversity or change. In the context of earthquake disasters, Comfort (1999, p. 21, cited in Bruneau et al., 2003) defines resilience as “the capacity to adapt existing resources and skills to new conditions and operational demands,” emphasizing the need for both pre-event and post-event strategies, including risk reduction, loss prevention, impact minimization, and recovery. Urban resilience extends this concept to the city scale, referring to a city’s capacity to withstand, adapt to, and recover from shocks while maintaining its essential functions and overall well-being (Ribeiro & Gonçalves, 2019; Cao, 2023). Importantly, resilience is not only about adaptation; historical evidence suggests that strategies that appear effective in the short term can, over the long term, increase systemic vulnerability, demonstrating the concept’s complexity and multidimensionality (Chelleri, 2012). The rise of the “Resilient Cities” framework reflects this complexity, particularly in the context of urban adaptation to climate change, and has stimulated global collaboration in fields such as risk management, sustainability, and urban governance. Community-based seismic resilience emphasizes the role of social units— including organizations and communities—in reducing hazards, limiting disaster impacts, and recovering in ways that minimize social disruption. Effective resilience requires both robust infrastructure capable of functioning during and after earthquakes, and well-coordinated emergency 74 response and recovery strategies to reduce fatalities, injuries, and economic losses (Bruneau et al., 2003). Seismic resilience can be conceptualized through the four key attributes of the 4R framework—Robustness, Redundancy, Resourcefulness, and Rapidity—which collectively define urban resilience. Robustness, the capacity to maintain functionality under stress; redundancy, the ability to substitute functions in case of failure; resourcefulness, the capacity to identify problems, prioritize actions, and mobilize resources effectively; and rapidity, the ability to act promptly to limit losses and prevent future disruptions (Xie, 2023; Bruneau et al., 2003, Kapucu, Ge, Rott, & Isgandar, 2024) (Table 1). Table 1. Key Components of Resilience;4R Framework (Bruneau et al., 2003) Component Description Robustness Ability to withstand stress without loss of function. Redundancy Capacity to substitute functions during failure. Resourcefulness Ability to identify problems, prioritize, and mobilize resources. Rapidity Ability to act promptly to limit losses and prevent future disruptions. In addition, urban resilience can be examined across four interrelated dimensions: technical, organizational, social, and economic. The technical dimension captures the capacity of physical systems to maintain functionality under shocks, relying primarily on robustness and redundancy. The organizational dimension refers to the ability of institutions managing critical facilities and disaster tasks to coordinate, make decisions, and respond effectively, incorporating resourcefulness and rapidity. The social dimension reflects the degree of protection and support for communities and public administration units, emphasizing 75 community-based resilience and post-disaster recovery. Finally, the economic dimension addresses the city’s capacity to reduce both direct and indirect economic losses through risk management and loss mitigation strategies (Ribeiro & Gonçalves, 2019) (Table 2). Table 2. Key Dimensions and Characteristics of Urban Resilience (Ribeiro & Gonçalves, 2019) Dimension Definition Key Characteristics Technical Capacity of physical systems to function under shocks. Robustness, Redundancy Organizational Capacity of organizations managing critical facilities and disaster tasks. Resourcefulness, Rapidity, Decision-making ability Social Degree of protection for communities and public administration units. Community-based resilience, Post-disaster recovery Economic Capacity to reduce direct and indirect economic losses. Loss mitigation, Risk management Taken together, these components and dimensions provide a comprehensive framework for understanding, assessing, and enhancing urban resilience, particularly in earthquake-prone and rapidly urbanizing contexts. Ribeiro and Gonçalves (2019), building on Bruneau’s criteria, evaluated resilience across five dimensions, including a natural dimension. Urban resilience is not limited to the four core components; it can also be assessed through these five dimensions: the natural dimension, which considers environmental factors and ecosystem resilience; the economic dimension, encompassing the sustainability of economic systems and their flexibility in the face of crises; the social dimension, reflecting communities’ capacity to withstand crises through solidarity, social capital, and social networks; the physical dimension, addressing the resilience of infrastructure, buildings, and transportation systems; and the institutional 76 dimension, covering governance, policy, planning mechanisms, and their role in crisis management. Within this framework, urban resilience is a multidimensional and dynamic concept aimed at producing holistic and sustainable solutions to the challenges cities face (Xie, 2023). It represents the ability of a city or urban community to withstand various risks, crises, and unexpected disruptions. Several opportunities and challenges have been identified in the field of urban resilience. To capitalize on these opportunities and address the challenges, it is essential to integrate diverse experiences within and across cities and to foster collaboration among scientists, the public, and authorities. Such collaboration should aim to produce knowledge that is scientifically reliable, contextually relevant, socially robust, and practically applicable (Ribeiro & Gonçalves, 2019). Moreover, by generating clear operational definitions, measurable criteria, and concrete baseline data, conceptual ambiguities, local-level disconnects, and coordination gaps can be mitigated, while facilitating the integration of different types of knowledge (Table 3). Table 3. Opportunities and Challenges in Urban Resilience (Ribeiro & Gonçalves, 2019) Opportunities Challenges Integration of diverse experiences (within and across cities) Conceptual ambiguity in different contexts Collaboration among scientists, the public, and authorities Lack of operational definitions Production of knowledge that is applicable, contextually relevant, and socially robust Local-level disconnects and coordination gaps Development of clear criteria and concrete baseline data Need for integration of different types of knowledge 77 Indeed, the urban resilience approach requires not only reducing disaster risks but also establishing social resilience mechanisms that enable effective response during crises and rapid recovery after disasters (Meerow et al., 2016). Consequently, resilience in urban areas aims not only to mitigate the impacts of potential disasters but also to strengthen communities through crisis experiences. This perspective, as illustrated by cases such as the Van earthquake, positions disaster risk management as a fundamental component of sustainable urban development (Cutter et al., 2008). 4. Characteristics and Spatial Vulnerabilities of the 2011 Van Earthquake Van Province provides a relevant case study for applying these concepts. Historically, the region has experienced avalanches, landslides, earthquakes, rockfalls, floods, and rising lake levels (Ministry of Environment and Forestry, 2011). Among these, earthquakes are the most frequent and destructive, causing the greatest human and material losses. The province lies within firstand second-degree earthquake zones, with the city center in the second-degree zone, intersected by significant fault lines. The region’s fragile soil and settlements’ limited resilience exacerbate seismic impacts. Earthquakes recur approximately every 30–35 years, and accumulated stress along fault lines, combined with loose soil and shallow groundwater, further increases damage potential. Additionally, interactions among multiple fault zones heighten regional vulnerability (Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, 2017In 2021, “Climate Change” was added, making this the ministry’s current 78 official name). Strengthening disaster risk reduction and preparedness is therefore essential. The most destructive earthquakes in Van occurred in 1930, 1976, and 2011, each registering a magnitude of 7.2. 4.1. The 2011 Van Earthquake and Disaster Management Process The 2011 Van Earthquake occurred on Sunday, October 23, at 13:40 local time, with its epicenter in Tabanlı Village, Central District, registering a magnitude of 7.2 (M). While post-disaster management efforts were ongoing, a second earthquake struck on Wednesday, November 9, at 21:20, with a magnitude of 5.6 (M) and its epicenter in the Edremit District. Following these events, an average of 180 aftershocks per day was reported over the subsequent month (Erdik, Kamer, Demircioğlu, & Şeşetyan, 2012) The earthquakes resulted in 644 fatalities and 1,966 injuries. Damage assessments were conducted on 187,000 buildings, of which approximately 49,000 were identified as damaged. Among the assessed structures, 76.4% of residential buildings, 78.9% of workplaces, and 82.3% of barns were damaged. Overall, these assessments covered 77% of the total building stock, underscoring the vulnerability of local structures and their insufficient resilience to seismic events (METU, 2012; Yıldız Technical University, 2011). Expert-led search and rescue operations began within the first thirty minutes following the earthquakes. Emergency needs—including temporary shelter, healthcare, and food support—were provided via road and air transport. Tent settlements were established to address multiple humanitarian requirements, including shelter, health services, education, psychological support, social spaces, sanitation, and security. These 79 temporary settlements were later replaced by container-based housing complexes. The post-earthquake response provided critical lessons for enhancing regional resilience. Reconstruction efforts included the construction of permanent housing and the development of planned living areas. Site selection studies were conducted to identify safe locations for new housing, and comprehensive planning was completed to ensure secure living environments for earthquake survivors ((METU, 2012; AFAD, 2014). Overall, urban resilience in Van demonstrates that effective disaster risk management not only mitigates the impacts of earthquakes but also strengthens communities through crisis experiences, positioning resilience as a fundamental component of sustainable urban development (Meerow et al., 2016; Cutter et al., 2008). 4.2. Planning Studies in Van Province Urban planning is an effective tool for disaster risk management, helping to prevent potential losses. In Van, planning efforts can be evaluated through the lenses of vulnerability and resilience. Prior to the 2011 Van earthquake, the 1996 zoning plan identified the city’s population as 353,419. The urban fabric was dispersed, scattered, and sprawling, with a gross density of 53 people/ha and undeveloped areas in the city center (Van Büyükşehir Belediyesi 2016). Before the implementation of the 1996 plan, approximately 2,000 amendments were made, mainly increasing building heights, reducing green areas, and expanding residential zones, which disrupted the integrity of the plan (ÇŞB, 2013a). These changes intensified central urban density and strained infrastructure below planned standards (DAKA, 2014). Unregulated or unauthorized constructions, inconsistent building heights, and the unequal distribution of public facilities increased 80 the city’s vulnerability. Green areas were limited (2.15 m² per capita), and playgrounds were insufficient relative to population density. Overall, the 1996 plan was inadequate in providing public spaces, contributing to Van’s disaster vulnerability (ÇŞB, 2013a). 4.3. 1/100,000 Muş-Bitlis-Van Environmental Master Plan (EMP) The 1/100,000 scale Environmental Master Plan for the Muş-Bitlis-Van area, approved on April 1, 2011, aimed to prevent rural-to-urban migration, support balanced and sustainable regional development, control unplanned settlements, preserve ecological balance, promote agriculture and livestock, and protect natural and cultural assets (ÇŞB2019, April 5). Residential areas for the projected 2035 population were proposed mainly on vacant urban plots and surrounding dry farmland. Northern areas were designated for industry and included the university. The plan also suggested specialized zones in the city center, such as fairgrounds, festival areas, technoparks, and storage/development areas for Van OSB (ÇŞB2019, April 5). Compliance with building regulations for disaster-prone areas, including the Earthquake-Resistant Buildings Regulation, was stipulated (Figure 1) 87 4R are limited; some analyses exist based on regulations management centers, or emergency service/shelter areas earthquake casualties and damages is limited 1R 2R 3R 4R ▲ ▲ ● ■ Zoning and Building Conditions 4R Partially sensitive; new development areas are relatively more suitable Critical facilities are not given a special place in the planning approach City center and areas of intensive use increase vulnerability; not aligned with macroform strategies In densely built-up urban areas, the capacity to reduce economic losses is highly limited 1R 2R 3R 4R ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Social Facilities 4R Balanced distribution, but only positive in terms of standards Distribution complies with planning regulations Lack of postdisaster facility proposals No clarity on how losses will be recovered 1R 2R 3R 4R ▲ ● ● ▲ City Center (CBD and surroundings) 4R High-density risks not considered High concentration; fuel stations located within settlements No alternative transportation; vulnerability is high Despite being the main component of the economy, the city center has no special planning decision 1R 2R 3R 4R ● ● ● ● Green Area Uses 4R No sustainable systems in green areas Complies with standards but insufficient in the center; not considered as post-earthquake gathering areas No green belts or integrated networks to separate hazardous uses The use of green areas does not aim to mitigate postdisaster losses 1R 2R 3R 4R ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Post-Disaster Facilities 4R No disaster preparedness Partially in line with standards No special facilities/areas for risks No dedicated budget 1R 2R 3R 4R ● ● ● ● Transportation System 4R Transportation system built without considering post-disaster conditions Continuous and accessible; alternative routes exist but not linked to disaster response No green area integration; insufficient parking; lack of alternative transport modes and heliports The transportation system is not designed for disastersensitive urban systems and may cause severe economic collapse 1R 2R 3R 4R ● ● ● ● Note: Main Components of Resilience (4R) : 1. Robustness 2. Redundancy 3. Resourcefulness 4. Rapidity Symbols used for 4R: 88 ■ Fully aligned ▲ Partially aligned ● Low alignment Source: Adapted from Erekinci (2019) The UİP, in combination with strategies beyond MP, includes measures to mitigate earthquake damage. Development outside the city center follows detached planning, while the city center has mixed detached and contiguous zoning. Densest residential areas surround the city center, tapering outward. No vertical additions were made to existing buildings, and setbacks and engineering solutions comply with regulations. Roads have at least two lanes with no dead ends, supporting earthquake mitigation strategies. However, residential blocks exceeding 75 m, fuel stations within housing areas, and absence of post-disaster facilities increase vulnerability and reduce resilience. Overall, the UİP’s alignment with earthquake mitigation strategies is partially adequate but has notable deficiencies. 6.Conclusion and Recommendations Turkey, due to its geographical location and geological structure, is highly prone to disasters, particularly earthquakes, and exhibits significant vulnerabilities. Disasters result not only in the loss of life and property but also in economic, social, physical, and psychological damages. Minimizing and mitigating these losses is critical for enhancing urban resilience at both regional and national levels and for ensuring sustainable development. Urban planning serves as an effective tool for disaster risk management by identifying and reducing vulnerabilities, preventing potential damages, and strengthening resilience. Disaster-sensitive planning processes aim to 89 enhance urban resilience to earthquakes and other hazards through comprehensive analyses, spatial planning decisions, plan annotations, and zoning regulations. This approach supports rapid and effective postdisaster recovery. The crisis management process following the 2011 Van earthquake was largely successful. Inter-agency coordination was effectively maintained, search-and-rescue operations were conducted by expert teams, temporary shelters were provided through tent and container cities, and the construction of permanent housing commenced promptly, thereby improving the living standards of affected populations. Despite these efforts, Van Province remains highly vulnerable due to a range of disaster risks, including earthquakes, landslides, avalanches, floods, and rising lake levels. Spatial planning strategies addressing landslides, avalanches, floods, and water-level increases have been developed, contributing to enhanced urban resilience. Nevertheless, planning measures aimed specifically at mitigating earthquake damages remain partially inadequate, increasing the city’s vulnerability and negatively affecting its overall resilience. While the implementation of disaster-sensitive regulations has been a positive step toward enhancing urban resilience, post-earthquake planning processes revealed shortcomings in several critical areas, including: designated post-disaster functions, green space systems, spatial distribution of land uses, settlement patterns, building typologies, the macroform of the urban center, distribution of hazardous functions, and the diversity of transportation networks. These deficiencies indicate that 90 existing vulnerabilities have not been fully addressed, leaving urban resilience insufficient. It is therefore imperative to update planning practices across Van Province to reduce vulnerabilities and strengthen resilience. Clearly identifying functions to be used during disasters will establish essential protective mechanisms against earthquake risks. Planning processes should be conducted by expert institutions, independently of political and economic pressures, to ensure a long-term resilience perspective. Furthermore, unnecessary or unregulated modifications to existing plans should be avoided. Establishing scientific advisory councils, similar to the Japanese model, can ensure that only necessary interventions are implemented, thereby reducing vulnerability. Active participation of local authorities and communities in disaster management will enhance social resilience. In this context, evacuation plans should be prepared, assembly areas for disaster use should be designated, and infrastructures to meet the basic needs of the population must be established. Finally, raising public awareness and educating residents about disaster risks is essential for reducing vulnerabilities. Early warning systems, disaster-focused digital platforms, and rapid access to information are critical tools for strengthening urban resilience. In conclusion, although post-2011 earthquake crisis management in Van was largely effective, planning for seismic risk mitigation remains partially inadequate. Disaster-sensitive regulations have positively contributed to resilience, yet gaps persist in post-disaster functional allocation, green space networks, settlement patterns, building typologies, and transportation diversity. 91 Recommendations for improving urban resilience in Van include: • Updating all planning levels to explicitly integrate post-disaster functions. • Conducting planning independently of political and economic pressures, under expert supervision. • Establishing scientific advisory councils to approve only necessary plan modifications. • Enhancing community participation in disaster management to strengthen social resilience. • Preparing evacuation plans and infrastructure to meet the population’s basic needs during disasters. • Implementing early warning systems, disaster-focused digital platforms, and rapid information access. Effective integration of these measures will significantly reduce urban vulnerability and enhance resilience against future disasters. 92 Acknowledgements and Information Note This article was produced from the Master's Degree thesis completed in 2019 at Gazi University, Graduate School of Social Sciences, Department of Urban and Regional Planning. The article complies with national and international research and publication ethics. Ethics Committee approval was not required for the study. Author Contribution and Conflict of Interest Declaration Information All authors contributed equally to the article 93 References Ahern, J. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, 341-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.021. Bruneau, M., Chang, S. E., Eguchi, R. T., Lee, G. C., O’Rourke, T. D., Reinhorn, A. M., Shinozuka, M., Tierney, K., Wallace, W. A., & von Winterfeldt, D. (2003). A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra, 19(4), 733–752. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1623497. Cao, H. (2023). Urban resilience: Concept, influencing factors and improvement. Frontiers in Business, Economics and Management, 9(1), 343. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371089374_Urban_Resili ence_Concept_Influencing_Factors_and_Improvement. Chelleri, L. (2012). From the «Resilient City to urban resilience: A review essay on understanding and integrating the resilience perspective for urban systems. Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 58(2), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/dag.17.5. Cutter, S. L., Burton, C. G., & Emrich, C. T. (2008). Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 5(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1732. Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı (ÇŞB). (2013a). Van (Merkez) ve çevresi ilave + revizyon imar planı merkez etabı 1/5000 nazım imar planı: Plan açıklama raporu. Mekânsal Planlama Genel Müdürlüğü. https://van.csb.gov.tr/1-5.000-olcekli-nazim-imarplani-ve-uip-651092905-pin-numarali-1-1000-olcekli-uygulamaimar-plani-duyuru-460298. Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı (ÇŞB). (2013b). Van (Merkez) ve çevresi ilave + revizyon imar planı merkez etabı 1/1000 uygulama imar planı: Plan açıklama raporu. Mekânsal Planlama Genel Müdürlüğü. https://van.csb.gov.tr/van-ili-merkez-ve-. Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı (ÇŞB). (2013c). Van (Merkez) ve çevresi ilave + revizyon imar planı kuzey + güney + merkez etabı: Plan açıklama raporu. Mekânsal Planlama Genel Müdürlüğü.ÇŞB (2019, April 5). 94 Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. 1/100.000 Muş-Bitlis-Van Planlama Bölgesi Çevre Düzeni Planı. https://mpgm.csb.gov.tr/mus-bitlisvan-planlama-bolgesi-i-82202. Doğu Anadolu Kalkınma Ajansı (DAKA). (2014). Kentsel büyüme ve planlama (ss. 1–45). Doğu Anadolu Kalkınma Ajansı. https://www.daka.org.tr/icerikler/mda. Erekinci, Ö. D. (2019). Afet duyarlı planlama: Van ili örneği (Yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara) (ss. 71–130). Erdik, M. (2000). Report on 1999 Kocaeli and Düzce (Turkey) earthquakes. Seismological Research Letters, 71(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.71.1.1. Erdik, M., Kamer, Y., Demircioğlu, M., & Şeşetyan, K. (2012). 23 October 2011 Van (Turkey) earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257632885_23_October_ 2011_Van_Turkey_earthquake. Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD). (n.d.). About Van earthquake. Retrieved Jun 14, 2025, from https://www.afad.gov.tr. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD). (2012). 2011 Van earthquake report. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD). (2014). Postearthquake reconstruction efforts in Van. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority. Güney, D. (2012). Van earthquakes (23 October 2011 and 9 November 2011) and performance of masonry and adobe structures. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 12, 3337–3342. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-3337-2012. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2096802. Kapucu, N., Ge, Y., Rott, E., & Isgandar, H. (2024). Urban resilience: Multidimensional perspectives, challenges and prospects for future 95 research. Urban Governance, 4(3), 162–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ugj.2024.09.003. Meerow, S., Newell, J.P. and Stults, M. (2016) Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 147, 38-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011. METU, Middle East Technical University, Earthquake Engineering Research Center. (2012, February). 9 November 2011 Mw 5.6 VanEdremit earthquake: Observations on seismic and structural damage (Report No. METU-EERC / İMO 2012-01). Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects, Chamber of Civil Engineers. Ribeiro, P. J. G., & Gonçalves, L. A. P. J. (2019). Urban resilience: A conceptual framework. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, 101625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101625. Sharifi, A., & Yamagata, Y. (2016). Urban resilience assessment: Multiple dimensions, criteria, and indicators. In A. Sharifi & Y. Yamagata (Eds.), Urban resilience (pp. 283–298). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39812-9_13. Xie, J. (2023). Identifying and ranking the dimensions of urban resilience and its effect on sustainable urban development in Tongdejie, China. Sustainability, 15(6), 5606. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065606. Yıldız Technical University. (2011). 23 October 2011 Van earthquake: Technical investigation report (Ed. D. Güney). Yıldız Technical University. http://www.ek.yildiz.edu.tr/images/images/yayinlar/vandeprem.pdf Van Büyükşehir Belediyesi. (2016). İmar ve Şehircilik Müdürlüğü CBS verileri. Van Büyükşehir Belediyesi. Van Büyükşehir Belediyesi. (2019). İmar ve Şehircilik Müdürlüğü CBS verileri. Van Büyükşehir Belediyesi. https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/resilience. 96 Assoc. Prof. Dr. Demet EROL E-mail: [email protected] Educational Status: PhD (Doctorate) License: Middle East Technical University (METU) Degree: Yildiz Technical University (Master’s Degree) Doctorate: Ankara University Professional experiences: Gazi University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of City and Regional Planning – Faculty Member Özge DÜZGÜN EREKİNCİ E-mail: [email protected] Educational Status License: Gazi University Degree: Gazi University (Master’s Degree) Doctorate: Professional experiences: Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı, Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara/Türkiye