SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ege Coğrafya Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 35 Sayı: 1

A Study on the Changing Meanings of “Home” in Earthquake Cities: The Case of Antakya (Hatay)

Deprem Kentlerinde “Ev”in Değişen Anlamları Üzerine Bir Araştırma: Antakya (Hatay) Örneği

Fatma Dağlı(Hatay Mustafa Kemal University)0009-0004-6334-3227
Mediha Aslan(Hatay Mustafa Kemal University)0009-0007-7794-0059
Fidan Koç(Hatay Mustafa Kemal University)0009-0006-4921-9558
Yücel Dinç(HATAY MUSTAFA KEMAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0492-4724
Pages
97–117
Publication Date
2026-06-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, the findings are consistent with the findings of academic studies that have empirically investigated the changing meanings of home after natural disasters (in Iran, Nepal, Türkiye, etc.).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to gather the dominant, recurring, and changing approaches to home-related feelings and thoughts of earthquake victims residing in Antakya following the February 2023 earthquakes, and to classify these approaches according to their depth of meaning.
📊
Key Findings & Data:As part of the study, interviews were conducted with a total of 56 earthquake victims living in various parts of the city using semi-structured interview forms.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, the findings are consistent with the findings of academic studies that have empirically investigated the changing meanings of home after natural disasters (in Iran, Nepal, Türkiye, etc.).
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Şubat 2023 depremleri · Antakya · paradigma

Abstract

This study aims to gather the dominant, recurring, and changing approaches to home-related feelings and thoughts of earthquake victims residing in Antakya following the February 2023 earthquakes, and to classify these approaches according to their depth of meaning. As part of the study, interviews were conducted with a total of 56 earthquake victims living in various parts of the city using semi-structured interview forms. In this way, ethnographic data consisting of exploratory questions about the home were collected during the research process. In the analysis of qualitative data obtained from field research, MAXQDA20, a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software, was used. The main findings of the study showed that the perception of home among the people living in Antakya was explained more through a humanist geography. The home finds its strongest expression in the sense of "place," one of the building blocks of humanist geography. The humanist geography approach has been followed by the paradigms of child geography, feminist geography, and landscape, in that order. All these approaches have shown that the length of time spent in a home, the time lived there, and the losses experienced following disasters all have an impact on love of home and attachment/relationship to it. In conclusion, the findings are consistent with the findings of academic studies that have empirically investigated the changing meanings of home after natural disasters (in Iran, Nepal, Türkiye, etc.).

Özet

Bu çalışmada, Antakya’da ikamet eden depremzedelerin Şubat 2023 depremleri sonrasında eve yönelik duygu ve düşüncelerinde baskın, tekrar eden ve değişen yaklaşımların bir araya getirilmesi ve bunların anlam derinliklerine göre tasnif edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında kentin muhtelif yerlerinde yaşayan toplam 56 depremzedeyle yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formları üzerinden görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu sayede araştırma sürecinde ev ile ilgili keşfedici sorulardan oluşan etnografik veriler toplanmıştır. Saha araştırmalarından elde edilen nitel verilerin analizinde bilgisayar destekli nitel veri analizi yazılımlarından biri olan MAXQDA20’den yararlanılmıştır. Çalışmanın temel bulguları; Antakya’da yaşayanların ev algısının daha çok hümanist coğrafya üzerinden açıklandığını göstermiştir. Ev, en güçlü karşılığını hümanist coğrafyanın yapı taşlarından biri olan “yer” duygusunda bulmuştur. Hümanist coğrafya yaklaşımını sırasıyla çocuk coğrafyası, feminist coğrafya ve peyzaj paradigmaları izlemiştir. Tüm bu yaklaşımlar; yaşanılan evdeki ikamet sürelerinin, burada geçirilen zamanın ve afetler sonrasında yaşanan kayıpların ev sevgisi ve bağlılığı/bağımlılığı üzerinde etkili olduğunu göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak bulgular; doğal afetler sonrasında evin değişen anlamlarını ampirik araştırmalarla (İran, Nepal, Türkiye vb.) ortaya koyan akademik çalışmaların bulgularıyla tutarlılık göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dağlı, F., Aslan, M., Koç, F., Dinç, Y. (2026). A Study on the Changing Meanings of “Home” in Earthquake Cities: The Case of Antakya (Hatay). Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, Cilt: 35 Sayı: 1, 97–117. https://doi.org/10.51800/ecd.1880393

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (66)

  1. Ağbaba, D. (2020). Yer bağlılığının sosyo-mekânsal farklar bakımından incelenmesi: Niğde örneği. IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Milli Mücadelenin 100.Yılı Özel Sayısı, 133-147. doi: https://doi.org/10.21733/ibad.800486
  2. Aitken, S. C. (2018). Children's geographies: Tracing the evolution and involution of a concept. Geographical Review, 108(1), 3-23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45210366
  3. Al Jazar, A. (2022). In search of home the value of people, belongıngs, and place. Master thesis. Maastricht Academy of Architecture Zuyd University of Applied Sciences. Netherlands.
  4. Anton, C. E., & Lawrence, C. (2014). Home is where the heart is: The effect of place of residence on place attachment and community participation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 451-461. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.10.007
  5. Arı, Y. (2005). Amerikan kültürel coğrafyasında peyzaj kavramı. Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi, 10(13), 311-339.
  6. Arie, J. (1997). Motivation in elderly disaster victims during recovery from loss of home. PhD dissertation, Texas A&M University.
  7. Arslan, H., & Ünlü, A. (2010). Afet sonrası yeniden yapılanma sürecinde yer değiştirme ve yere bağlılığın değerlendirilmesi: Düzce örneği. İTÜDERGİSİ/a, 9(1), 43-53. http://itudergi.itu.edu.tr/index.php/itudergisi_a/article/view/1037
  8. Bachelard, G. (1964). The poetics of space. The Orion Press.
  9. Bai, J., Li, Y., & Wang, T. (2024). Research on home in geography: A systematic literatüre review. International Journal of Educational Curriculum Management and Research, 5(2), 81-91. doi: https://doi.org/10.38007/IJECMR.2024.050211
  10. Bilgili, M., & Yıldırım, S. (2024). Coğrafyada temel kavramların ilişkiselliği: Mekân, yer, peyzaj ve bölge, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 62, 283-293. doi: https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1445668
  11. Blunt, A., & Varley, A. (2004). Geographies of home. Cultural Geographies, 11(1), 3-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1191/1474474004eu289xx
  12. Bora, A. (2009). Rüyası ömrümüzün çünkü eşyaya siner. A. Alkan (Ed) içinde, Cins Cins Mekan (s.63-75), Varlık Yayınları.
  13. Bowlby, S., Gregory, S., & McKie, L. (1997). Doing home: Patriarchy, caring, and space. Women’s Studies International Forum, 20(3), 343–350.
  14. Brickell, K. (2012). ‘Mapping’ and ‘doing’critical geographies of home. Progress in Human Geography, 36(2), 225-244. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511418708
  15. Carroll, B., Morbey, H., Balogh, R., & Araoz, G. (2009). Flooded homes, broken bonds, the meaning of home, psychological processes and their impact on psychological health in a disaster. Health & Place, 15, 540-547.
  16. Cerrina, M. (2025). How the meaning of home changed since the earthquake in 2015 in Kathmandu?. Rigvedic Himalaya, 2, 1-14.
  17. Cox, H. (1968). The Restoration of a sense of place: A Theological reflection on the visual environment. Ekistics, 25, 422-424 Cresswell, T. (2015). Place: A short introduction (2nd Edition). John Wiley & Sons.
  18. Darabaneanu, D., Maci, D., & Oprea, I. M. (2024). Influence of environmental perception on place attachment in Romanian rural areas. Sustainability, 16(3), 1106. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031106
  19. Dinç, Y. (2023). 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremleri sonrası yeniden yapılanma sürecinde yere bağlılığın değerlendirilmesi: Antakya (Hatay) örneği. Türk Coğrafya Dergisi, 83, 45-57. doi: https://doi.org/10.17211/tcd.1347063
  20. Dinç, Y. (2024). Beşeri coğrafyada “ev”: Teorik bir tartışma. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 33(2), 197-217. doi: https://doi.org/10.51800/ecd.1559270
  21. Domosh, M. (1998). Geography and gender: home, again?. Progress in Human Geography, 22(2), 276-282. doi: https://doi.org/10.1191/030913298676121192
  22. Dovey, K. (1985). Home and homelessness. In I. Altman, & C. M. Werner (Eds), Home Environments. (pp. 33-64), Plenum Press.
  23. Duncan, J. S., & Lambert, D. (2004). Landscapes of home. A Companion to Cultural Geography, 382-403. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996515.ch25
  24. Easthope, H. (2004). A place called home. Housing, Theory and Society, 21(3), 128-138.
  25. Giuliani, M. (1991). Towards an analysis of mental representations of attachment to the home. The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 8(2), 133–146.
  26. González, B. M. (2005). Topophilia and topophobia: The home as an evocative place of contradictory emotions. Space and Culture, 8(2), 193-213. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331204273984
  27. Gregory, D. (2009). The dictionary of human geography. Blackwell Google Schola, 2, 577-603.
  28. Halbwachs, M. (2016), Hafızanın toplumsal çerçeveleri. (Çev. Büşra Uçar). Heretik Yayınları.
  29. Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, language, thought. Harper and Row.
  30. Heidegger, M. (1973). Being and time. Oxford University Press.
  31. Henderson, G. L., & Waterstone, M. (2009). Geographic thought: A praxis perspective. Taylor & Francis.
  32. Hidalgo, M.C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273-281. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0221
  33. Ingold, T. (2021). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge.
  34. Kamani‐Fard, A., Hamdan Ahmad, M., & Remaz Ossen, D. (2012). The sense of place in the new homes of post‐Bam earthquake reconstruction. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 3(3), 220-236.
  35. Karjalainen, P. T. (1993). House, home and the place of dwelling. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 10(2), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/02815739308730324
  36. Koçak Turhanoğlu, F.A., & Beklan Çetin, O. (2023). Toplumsal cinsiyet bağlamında evin anlamı ve ev ile kurulan ilişkinin farklılaşması. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 26(1), 40-60. https://doi.org/10.18490/sosars.1290150
  37. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press
  38. Lawrence, R. J. (1987). What makes a house a home?. Environment and Behavior, 19(2), 154-168.
  39. Lefebvre, H. (2014). Mekânın üretimi (Çev. Işık Ergüden). Sel Yayıncılık.
  40. Lyons, M. (2009). Building back better: the large-scale impact of small-scale approaches to reconstruction. World Development, 37(2), 385-98.
  41. Mallett, S. (2004). Understanding home: A critical review of the literature. The Sociological Review, 52(1), 62-89. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2004.00442.x
  42. Massey, D. (2001). Space, place and gender. University of Minnesota Press.
  43. Milczarek, M. M. (2012). Emotional Geographies of Home: Place Identities Among Senior Women Residing in a Long-Term Care Facility. The University of Western Ontario.
  44. Moore, J. (2000). Placing home in context. Journal Of Environmental Psychology, 20(3), 207-217. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0178
  45. Özey, R., Bilgili, M. & Kocalar, A. O. (2018). Landscape theory in geography. International Journal of Geography and Geography Education, 38, 127-141. doi: https://doi.org/10.32003/iggei.441624
  46. Özgen, N. (2010). Bilim olarak coğrafya ve evrimsel paradigmaları. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 19(2), 1-26.
  47. Peek, L., Abramson, D. M., Cox, R. S., Fothergill, A., & Tobin, J. (2017). Children and disasters. In Handbook of disaster research (pp. 243-262). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  48. Perry, R., & Quarantelli, E. (2005), What is a disaster? New answers to old questions, International Research Committee on Disasters, College Station, TX.
  49. Proshansky, H. M. Fabian, A. K. & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 57–83. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/213649
  50. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. SAGE Publications.
  51. Rykwert, J. (1991). House and home. Social Research, 58(1), 51-62. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40970630
  52. Samanani, F., & J. Lenhard (2019). House and home. F. Stein, S. Lazar, M. Candea, H. Diemberger, J. Robbins, A. Sanchez & R. Stasch (Eds), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology doi: http://doi.org/10.29164/19
  53. Sixsmith, J. (1986). The meaning of home: An exploratory study of environmental experience. Journal Of Environmental Psychology, 6(4), 281-298. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(86)80002-0
  54. Steward, B. (2000). Living space: the changing meaning of home. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(3), 105-110.
  55. Stuber, J., Galea, S., Vandivere, S., Moore, K., Pfefferbaum, B., & Fairbrother, G. (2005). Behavior problems in New York City’s children after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(2), 190–200. doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0002-9432.75.2.190
  56. Takahashi, L. M. (1996). A decade of understanding homelessness in the USA: from characterization to representation. Progress in Human Geography, 20(3), 291–310. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/030913259602000301
  57. Tayanç, M. (2022). Mekân ve pandemi: Değişen roller ve dönüşen evin halleri. Habitus Toplumbilim Dergisi, 3(3), 71-96.
  58. Tekin, F. (2019). Hafıza ortamından tüketim nesnesine dönüşen ev. Sosyal ve Kültürel Araştırmalar Dergisi (SKAD), 5(11), 253-273.
  59. Terkenli, T. S. (1995). Home as a region. Geographical Review, 85(3), 324-334. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/215276
  60. Tuan, Y-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience (8th Edition). University of Minnesota Press.
  61. Tuan, Y. F. (1991). A view of geography. Geographical Review, 81(1), 99-107. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/215179
  62. Turut, H., & Özgür, E.M. (2018). Bir kente göçün hikâyesi: Süreçler, bütünleşme ve aidiyet. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 16(1), 153-180. doi: https://doi.org/10.1501/Cogbil_0000000196
  63. Uysal, A. (2015). Çocuk coğrafyaları ve çocukların gündelik mekânları. İDEALKENT, 6(17), 46-61.
  64. Valentine, G. (1989). The geography of women’s fear. Area, 21(4), 385–90. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20000063
  65. Varnacı Uzun, F. (2024). Antakya'ya yönelik yer duygusu: Şubat 2023 depremleri sonrası gitmek mi zor kalmak mı?. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 33(1), 1-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.51800/ecd.1455130
  66. Wilhoit-Larson, E. (2021). Creating home at work: Humanistic geography and placemaking in organizations. Culture and Organization, 27(6), 437-455. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2020.1861453 Yıldız, A., Dickinson, J., Priego‐Hernández, J., & Teeuw, R. (2023). Children's disaster knowledge, risk perceptions, and preparedness: A cross‐country comparison in Nepal and Turkey. Risk Analysis, 43(4), 747-761. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13937