This article was originally published on The Conversation, an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. Disclosure information is available on the original site.
___
Authors: Fatma Ozdogan, PhD Candidate & Researcher, Université de Montréal; and Cassidy Johnson, Professor of Urbanism and Disaster Risk Reduction, UCL
Two years after the devastating 2023 earthquakes in Turkey that killed about 60,000 people and caused the collapse of 57,000 buildings, the country’s recovery remains slow, fragmented, and heavily politicized.
Despite large-scale reconstruction efforts, branded the “Reconstruction of the Century,” there is no clear strategy or timeline, and affected communities are still excluded from decision-making.
Given the scale of destruction, reconstruction efforts will likely take years. Large-scale government housing projects on city outskirts are being prioritized due to their speed and the ease of land acquisition. However, these developments often come at the cost of uprooting established communities, pushing people into peripheral areas with limited access to services like transport and education and fewer economic opportunities.
Temporary accommodations like container cities continue to deteriorate. Overcrowding, inadequate sanitation and unreliable access to clean water, electricity, health care and education are widespread. Women face heightened safety risks, and schools are overwhelmed, forcing many families to relocate unwillingly or leaving children with no option but to hitchhike to school.
‘Disaster of the century’ narrative
From the outset, Turkey’s political leadership framed the 2023 earthquakes as the “disaster of the century,” using their scale to deflect scrutiny from governance failures. Weak enforcement of earthquake regulations and systemic negligence played a key role in the destruction, yet officials have avoided accountability.
This narrative was reinforced by contractors facing trial, who claimed the devastation was caused by an extraordinary natural event rather than poor construction practices or regulatory failures. By portraying the disaster as unavoidable, they have sought to shift responsibility away from those who contributed to the destruction.
The rapid removal of debris further weakened efforts to establish accountability. Clearing ruins so quickly erased critical evidence that could have explained why some buildings collapsed while others remained standing. Many structures were never properly assessed, and legal cases against those responsible have struggled to move forward due to missing documentation.
Survivors seeking justice remain trapped in lengthy legal battles with little hope for accountability. Among them are initiatives like Families in Pursuit of Justice and the Association for the Survival of the Champion Angels, led by relatives of victims, continue to demand accountability from contractors and officials.
It is important to note that earthquake-induced ground motions in a few localities did exceed the parameters defined in the building codes, but this should only have resulted in damage, not total building collapses.
Land expropriation and legal battles
Turkey’s construction industry, closely tied to political power, has benefited from disaster recovery, reinforcing existing economic and political hierarchies. Large-scale reconstruction projects serve as an economic engine, giving firms with close government ties an advantage while sidelining local communities.
The awarding of large-scale projects without competitive bidding has fuelled concerns that reconstruction is prioritizing political and economic interests over the needs of local communities.
One of the key mechanisms enabling top-down reconstruction is the designation of reserve areas, a legal tool allowing the state to expropriate land for redevelopment under the justification of disaster recovery and urban renewal. This process has often led to forced displacement, particularly in areas with high land value or where redevelopment aligns with broader political and economic interests.
This is evident in Akevler, a neighbourhood in central Antakya, where residents received sudden expropriation orders, even for structurally sound or repaired homes. Many launched legal challenges, marking their buildings with signs reading “Do not demolish; in court” to resist state-led destruction.
In November 2024, there was a significant legal victory for residents when a court issued a stay within the reserve area in Akevler. The court cited “irreparable harm” and ruled that demolitions and evictions could not proceed without due legal process. This decision also extended to vacant parcels, reinforcing concerns about arbitrary land seizures.
Beyond urban areas, rapid recovery decisions have also disregarded environmental concerns. In Defne, Hatay, earthquake survivor Çiğdem Mutlu Arslan has been fighting to protect her family’s ancestral olive grove. In July 2024, a contractor — citing post-disaster road construction — cut down 32 of 40 trees, some more than 150 years old, without an expropriation decision.
Determined to resist further encroachment, Arslan set up camp on her land, documenting the destruction and raising awareness of how recovery policies are exacerbating environmental degradation. Her struggle reflects broader post-disaster consequences, where recovery efforts threaten communities, heritage and the environment.
‘Building Back Better’
While these struggles highlight the shortcomings of post-disaster recovery, there are potentially better and fairer ways to approach reconstruction. Building Back Better (BBB) has become a central principle globally accepted, shaping expectations for reconstruction.
Introduced by the United Nations after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, BBB promotes rebuilding stronger, more resilient and more equitable communities rather than simply restoring pre-disaster conditions. BBB prioritizes disaster-resistant infrastructure, social equity and sustainability to reduce future risks.
Yet, BBB faces significant challenges. The tension between rapid reconstruction and long-term resilience often leads to trade-offs, where speed takes priority over equity and sustainability. Vulnerable communities, particularly low-income groups with insecure land tenure rights, frequently receive inadequate attention, exacerbating pre-existing inequalities.
For BBB to be effective, recovery strategies must be inclusive and adapted to local contexts. However, many disaster-prone regions lack the social safety nets and institutional capacity to implement BBB successfully. Additionally, the framework’s broad and ambiguous goals often result in inconsistent applications, where vulnerabilities are reinforced rather than addressed.
A more effective path forward
Drawing from these examples and considering the global discourse around post-disaster recovery, a more effective approach must prioritize social justice, transparency and long-term resilience. Several key measures should be considered:
A people-centred recovery: Reconstruction must prioritize affected communities rather than external economic or political interests. Ensuring access to stable housing, education and health care while addressing existing inequalities is crucial. Organized civil society groups can assist with articulating needs and developing community-driven plans. Decentralized access to financing for communities coupled with technical support can help with realizing these plans.
Transparency and accountability: Decision-making must be open to public scrutiny, and legal rulings must be enforced.
Challenging dominant narratives: Moving beyond narratives that frame disasters as inevitable is critical. Acknowledging governance failures and addressing systemic issues will be key to preventing future tragedies.
Balancing speed with resilience: While urgent needs must be met, reconstruction should incorporate more sustainable planning to prevent future displacement and social impacts.
Reforming the construction industry: Ensuring the effective enforcement of regulations and addressing systemic gaps in oversight are essential to reducing vulnerability to future disasters.
Without these measures, Turkey risks repeating past mistakes, deepening inequalities and failing to provide stability for disaster-affected communities.
___
Cassidy Johnson receives funding from UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, "Learning from Earthquakes: Building Resilient Communities Through Earthquake Reconnaissance, Response and Recovery," grant EP/P025951/1.
Fatma Ozdogan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
___
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Disclosure information is available on the original site. Read the original article: https://theconversation.com/turkeys-earthquake-reconstruction-efforts-must-balance-speed-with-fairness-248730
Fatma Ozdogan, PhD Candidate & Researcher, Université de Montréal; and Cassidy Johnson, Professor of Urbanism and Disaster Risk Reduction, UCL, The Conversation
