SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Engineering / 2026 / Volume: 10 Issue: 2

Mapping the Intellectual Landscape of Urban Earthquake Resilience: A Scientometric and Qualitative Synthesis toward Sustainable Cities

Yusuf Eminoğlu(DOKUZ EYLUL UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE DEPARTMENT OF CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING REGIONAL PLANNING PR.)0009-0005-6000-2934
Çisem Seyhan(DOKUZ EYLUL UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, DEPARTMENT OF CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING)0000-0002-7451-8377
Hilmi Evren Erdin(DOKUZ EYLUL UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, DEPARTMENT OF CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING)0000-0002-3350-8930
Esra Şırkı(SIIRT UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF FINE ARTS AND DESIGN, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING)0000-0001-7914-4821
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-05-01
🏛️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)

The resulting framework is empirically anchored in the observed publication patterns yet interpreted through contemporary planning and disaster-risk-reduction agendas, supporting inclusive, data-driven, and participatory approaches to sustainable urban futures

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Urban earthquake resilience has emerged as a critical research frontier at the intersection of disaster risk reduction, sustainable planning, and technological adaptation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study offers a comprehensive mixed-method synthesis of global scholarly efforts in this domain between 2000 and 2025.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The resulting framework is empirically anchored in the observed publication patterns yet interpreted through contemporary planning and disaster-risk-reduction agendas, supporting inclusive, data-driven, and participatory approaches to sustainable urban futures
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Earthquake Resilience · Urban Sustainability · Seismic Risk

Abstract

Urban earthquake resilience has emerged as a critical research frontier at the intersection of disaster risk reduction, sustainable planning, and technological adaptation. This study offers a comprehensive mixed-method synthesis of global scholarly efforts in this domain between 2000 and 2025. Drawing from 3,492 peer-reviewed journal articles indexed in Web of Science, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore, the research employs a hybrid methodology combining bibliometric analysis, spatial overlay with seismic exposure data, and qualitative synthesis of top-ranked studies. A novel metric—the Advanced Influence Score (AIS)—is introduced to refine influence estimation through a weighted composite of citation velocity, field-normalized impact, and burst intensity. Scientometric mapping reveals temporal surges in post-disaster knowledge production, thematic clustering around governance, equity, adaptation, and technology, and spatial mismatches between research attention and seismic risk. The qualitative review further categorizes methodological archetypes and conceptual trajectories within the field. Bringing these elements together, the study proposes a replicable analytical framework that links large-scale scientometric evidence, geospatial risk patterns, and conceptually grounded reading of key studies to inform urban policy debates on seismic resilience. The resulting framework is empirically anchored in the observed publication patterns yet interpreted through contemporary planning and disaster-risk-reduction agendas, supporting inclusive, data-driven, and participatory approaches to sustainable urban futures

🔖

Cite This Article

Eminoğlu, Y., Seyhan, Ç., Erdin, H. E., Şırkı, E. (2026). Mapping the Intellectual Landscape of Urban Earthquake Resilience: A Scientometric and Qualitative Synthesis toward Sustainable Cities. Turkish Journal of Engineering, Volume: 10 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.1758583

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (112)

  1. United Nations, ‘Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 3 June 2015: 69/283. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030’, 2015, UN General Assembly. [Online]. Available: https://undocs.org/A/RES/69/283
  2. R. Leichenko, ‘Climate change and urban resilience’, Curr Opin Environ Sustain, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 164–168, 2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.12.014.
  3. J. Birkmann, T. Welle, W. Solecki, S. Lwasa, and M. Garschagen, ‘Boost resilience of small and mid-sized cities’, Nature, vol. 537, no. 7622, pp. 605–608, 2016.
  4. S. L. Cutter et al., ‘A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters’, Global environmental change, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 598–606, 2008.
  5. M. Bruneau et al., ‘A Framework to Quantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience of Communities’, Earthquake Spectra, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 733–752, 2003, doi: 10.1193/1.1623497.
  6. G. P. Cimellaro, ‘Urban resilience for emergency response and recovery’, Fundamental concepts and applications, vol. 1, 2016.
  7. J. Ahern, ‘From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world’, Landsc Urban Plan, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 341–343, 2011.
  8. Y. Jabareen, ‘Planning the resilient city: Concepts and strategies for coping with climate change and environmental risk’, Cities, vol. 31, pp. 220–229, 2013.
  9. D. R. Godschalk, ‘Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities’, Nat Hazards Rev, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 136–143, 2003.
  10. S. M. Rinaldi, J. P. Peerenboom, and T. K. Kelly, ‘Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies’, IEEE control systems magazine, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 11–25, 2001.
  11. D. Mileti, Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. National Academies Press, 1999.
  12. P. Berke, Urban land use planning, 5th ed. University of Illinois Press, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130000797173266816
  13. R. B. Olshansky and L. Johnson, Clear as mud: Planning for the rebuilding of New Orleans. Routledge, 2017.
  14. B. Wisner, ‘Violent conflict, natural hazards and disaster’, in Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction, Routledge, 2012, pp. 71–81.
  15. M. Pelling, The vulnerability of cities: natural disasters and social resilience. Routledge, 2012.
  16. I. Douglas, K. Alam, M. Maghenda, Y. Mcdonnell, L. McLean, and J. Campbell, ‘Unjust waters: climate change, flooding and the urban poor in Africa’, Environ Urban, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 187–205, 2008.
  17. S. Huq, S. Kovats, H. Reid, and D. Satterthwaite, ‘Reducing risks to cities from disasters and climate change’, 2007, SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England.
  18. D. Satterthwaite, The Transition to a Predominantly Urban World and Its Underpinnings, no. 4. in Human Settlements Discussion Paper Series. London: IIED, 2007.
  19. United Nations, ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://undocs.org/A/RES/70/1
  20. S. Meerow, J. P. Newell, and M. Stults, ‘Defining urban resilience: A review’, Landsc Urban Plan, vol. 147, pp. 38–49, 2016.
  21. S. Davoudi et al., ‘Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End?’, Planning Theory & Practice, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 299–333, 2012, doi: 10.1080/14649357.2012.677124.
  22. L. J. Vale and T. J. Campanella, The resilient city: How modern cities recover from disaster. Oxford University Press, 2005.
  23. C. Wilkinson, ‘Social-ecological resilience: Insights and issues for planning theory’, Planning theory, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 148–169, 2012.
  24. C. Folke, S. R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, and J. Rockström, ‘Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability’, Ecology and society, vol. 15, no. 4, 2010.
  25. D. Matyas and M. Pelling, ‘Positioning resilience for 2015: the role of resistance, incremental adjustment and transformation in disaster risk management policy’, Disasters, vol. 39, no. s1, pp. s1–s18, 2015.
  26. M. Aria and C. Cuccurullo, ‘bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis’, J Informetr, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 959–975, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007.
  27. N. J. van Eck and L. Waltman, ‘Visualizing Bibliometric Networks’, in Measuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and Practice, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2014, ch. 2, pp. 285–320. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13.
  28. I. Zupic and T. Čater, ‘Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization’, Organ Res Methods, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 429–472, 2015, doi: 10.1177/1094428114562629.
  29. Y. Qin, S. Ghalambaz, M. Sheremet, M. Baro, and M. Ghalambaz, ‘Deciphering Urban Heat Island Mitigation: A Comprehensive Analysis of Application Categories and Research Trends’, Sustain Cities Soc, vol. 101, p. 105081, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.105081.
  30. D. Alexander, ‘GLOBALIZATION OF DISASTER: TRENDS, PROBLEMS AND DILEMMAS’, J Int Aff, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 1–22, 2006, [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24358424
  31. S. L. Cutter, ‘Resilience to What? Resilience for Whom?’, Geogr J, vol. 182, no. 2, pp. 110–113, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12174.
  32. J. Birkmann, Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: towards disaster resilient societies. United Nations University Press, 2013.
  33. N. Donthu, S. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, N. Pandey, and W. M. Lim, ‘How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines’, J Bus Res, vol. 133, pp. 285–296, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070.
  34. C. Chen, ‘CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 359–377, 2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317.
  35. S. De Angeli, B. D. Malamud, L. Rossi, F. E. Taylor, E. Trasforini, and R. Rudari, ‘A multi-hazard framework for spatial-temporal impact analysis’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 73, p. 102829, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102829.
  36. V. Bakhtiari, F. Piadeh, K. Behzadian, and Z. Kapelan, ‘A critical review for the application of cutting-edge digital visualisation technologies for effective urban flood risk management’, Sustain Cities Soc, vol. 99, p. 104958, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104958.
  37. Y. Huang, C. Xu, X. Zhang, and L. Li, ‘Bibliometric analysis of landslide research based on the WOS database’, Natural Hazards Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 49–61, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nhres.2022.02.001.
  38. D. Sirin, P. Hoffmann, and J. Scheffran, ‘Lifestyle changes for climate mitigation in cities and their relationship to urban health and well-being: A literature review’, Sustain Cities Soc, vol. 119, p. 106069, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2024.106069.
  39. V. Mishra and A. Sadhu, ‘Towards the effect of climate change in structural loads of urban infrastructure: A review’, Sustain Cities Soc, vol. 89, p. 104352, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104352.
  40. M. Amirzadeh, S. Sobhaninia, S. T. Buckman, and A. Sharifi, ‘Towards building resilient cities to pandemics: A review of COVID-19 literature’, Sustain Cities Soc, vol. 89, p. 104326, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104326.
  41. H. Chee Yin, M. M. Kassem, and F. Mohamed Nazri, ‘Comprehensive Review of Community Seismic Resilience: Concept, Frameworks, and Case Studies’, Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2022, no. 1, p. 7668214, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7668214.
  42. Y. Zhang, J. F. Fung, K. J. Johnson, and S. Sattar, ‘Review of Seismic Risk Mitigation Policies in Earthquake-Prone Countries: Lessons for Earthquake Resilience in the United States’, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 6208–6235, 2022, doi: 10.1080/13632469.2021.1911889.
  43. M. Shafapourtehrany, M. Batur, F. Shabani, B. Pradhan, B. Kalantar, and H. Özener, ‘A Comprehensive Review of Geospatial Technology Applications in Earthquake Preparedness, Emergency Management, and Damage Assessment’, Remote Sens (Basel), vol. 15, no. 7, 2023, doi: 10.3390/rs15071939.
  44. J. Wang and Y. Y. E. Ng, ‘Post-earthquake housing recovery with traditional construction: A preliminary review’, Progress in Disaster Science, vol. 18, p. 100283, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2023.100283.
  45. J. Xu and Y. Lu, ‘Towards an earthquake-resilient world: from post-disaster reconstruction to pre-disaster prevention’, Environmental Hazards, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 269–275, 2018, doi: 10.1080/17477891.2018.1500878.
  46. J. A. Moral-Muñoz, E. Herrera-Viedma, A. Santisteban-Espejo, and M. J. Cobo, ‘Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review’, El Profesional de la Información, vol. 29, no. 1, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03.
  47. M. E. Falagas, E. I. Pitsouni, G. A. Malietzis, and G. Pappas, ‘Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses’, The FASEB Journal, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 338–342, 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF.
  48. M. Thelwall, ‘Bibliometrics to webometrics’, J Inf Sci, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 605–621, 2008, doi: 10.1177/0165551507087238.
  49. Y. Ding, E. Yan, A. Frazho, and J. Caverlee, ‘PageRank for ranking authors in co‐citation networks’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 2229–2243, Jul. 2009, doi: 10.1002/asi.21171.
  50. P. Mongeon and A. Paul-Hus, ‘The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis’, Scientometrics, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 213–228, Jul. 2016, doi: 10.1007/S11192-015-1765-5/FIGURES/6.
  51. Y. Liu and H. He, ‘Scientometrics of Scientometrics Based on Web of Science Core Collection Data between 1992 and 2020’, Information, vol. 14, no. 12, p. 637, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.3390/info14120637.
  52. N. J. van Eck and L. Waltman, ‘Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping’, Scientometrics, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 523–538, Jul. 2010, doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.
  53. S. Team, ‘Science of science (Sci2) tool’, Indiana University and SciTech Strategies, vol. 379, 2009.
  54. Eminoğlu, Y., & Tarhan, Ç. (2025). Decadal evolution of GIS in disaster management and risk assessment. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 10(2), 173–196. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.1544048
  55. H. Xu, Y. Li, Y. Tan, and N. Deng, ‘A Scientometric Review of Urban Disaster Resilience Research’, Int J Environ Res Public Health, vol. 18, no. 7, 2021, doi: 10.3390/ijerph18073677.
  56. S. Scudero, A. Costanzo, and A. D’Alessandro, ‘Urban Seismic Networks: A Worldwide Review’, Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 24, 2023, doi: 10.3390/app132413165.
  57. R. Jigyasu, ‘Reducing Disaster Vulnerability through Local Knowledge and Capacity. The Case of Earthquake Prone Rural Communities in India and Nepal’, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2002.
  58. H.-C. Lee and H. Chen, ‘Implementing the Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030: Disaster governance strategies for persons with disabilities in Taiwan’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 41, p. 101284, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101284.
  59. T. Rashed and J. Weeks, ‘Assessing vulnerability to earthquake hazards through spatial multicriteria analysis of urban areas’, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 547–576, 2003, doi: 10.1080/1365881031000114071.
  60. L. Wang, X. Xue, Y. Zhang, and X. Luo, ‘Exploring the Emerging Evolution Trends of Urban Resilience Research by Scientometric Analysis’, Int J Environ Res Public Health, vol. 15, no. 10, 2018, doi: 10.3390/ijerph15102181.
  61. P. Albini, R. M. W. Musson, A. Rovida, M. Locati, A. A. G. Capera, and D. Viganò, ‘The Global Earthquake History’, Earthquake Spectra, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 607–624, 2014, doi: 10.1193/122013EQS297.
  62. J. C. Gaillard, ‘Vulnerability, capacity and resilience: Perspectives for climate and development policy’, J Int Dev, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 218–232, 2010, doi: 10.1002/jid.1675.
  63. U. Hassler and N. Kohler, ‘Resilience in the built environment’, Building Research & Information, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 119–129, 2014, doi: 10.1080/09613218.2014.873593.
  64. B. Pizzo, ‘Problematizing resilience: Implications for planning theory and practice’, Cities, vol. 43, pp. 133–140, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.11.015.
  65. S. Meerow and J. P. Newell, ‘Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why?’, Urban Geogr, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 309–329, 2019, doi: 10.1080/02723638.2016.1206395.
  66. L. A. Johnson and R. B. Olshansky, After Great Disasters: How Six Countries Managed Community Recovery. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2017.
  67. B. Minguez Garcia, ‘Integrating culture in post-crisis urban recovery: Reflections on the power of cultural heritage to deal with crisis’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 60, p. 102277, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102277.
  68. C. E. Kontokosta and R. K. Jain, ‘Modeling the energy retrofit decision in commercial office buildings’, Energy Build, vol. 88, pp. 254–264, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.08.062.
  69. J. E. Daniell, B. Khazai, F. Wenzel, and A. Vervaeck, ‘The CATDAT damaging earthquakes database’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 2235–2251, 2011, doi: 10.5194/nhess-11-2235-2011.
  70. F. Fatemi, A. Ardalan, B. Aguirre, N. Mansouri, and I. Mohammadfam, ‘Social vulnerability indicators in disasters: Findings from a systematic review’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 22, pp. 219–227, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.12.010.
  71. CRED and UNDRR, ‘EM-DAT: The International Disaster Database’, 2025, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), Brussels, Belgium. [Online]. Available: https://public.emdat.be
  72. R. Styron and M. Pagani, ‘The GEM Global Active Faults Database’, Earthquake Spectra, vol. 36, no. 1_suppl, pp. 160–180, 2020, doi: 10.1177/8755293020944182.
  73. Natural Earth, ‘10m Urban Areas’, 2024, Natural Earth.
  74. GeoServer Development Team, ‘Frequency of Landslides Triggered By Earthquakes - WMS Layer’, 2024, Open Source Geospatial Foundation. [Online]. Available: https://docs.geoserver.org/2.25.x/en/user/services/wms/reference.html
  75. M. L. Waskom, ‘seaborn: statistical data visualization’, J Open Source Softw, vol. 6, no. 60, p. 3021, 2021, doi: 10.21105/joss.03021.
  76. CrossRef, ‘CrossRef REST API’, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.crossref.org/documentation/api/
  77. J. Priem, H. Piwowar, and R. Orr, ‘OpenAlex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts’, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.01833
  78. W. M. Lim, S. Kumar, and N. Donthu, ‘How to combine and clean bibliometric data and use bibliometric tools synergistically: Guidelines using metaverse research’, J Bus Res, vol. 182, p. 114760, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114760.
  79. L. Waltman, N. J. van Eck, and E. C. M. Noyons, ‘A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks’, J Informetr, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 629–635, 2010, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002.
  80. M. Callon, J. P. Courtial, and F. Laville, ‘Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry’, Scientometrics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 155–205, Jul. 1991, doi: 10.1007/BF02019280.
  81. J. Kleinberg, ‘Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams’, in Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, in KDD ’02. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2002, pp. 91–101. doi: 10.1145/775047.775061.
  82. D. Wicks, ‘The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd edition)’, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 169–170, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1108/QROM-08-2016-1408. P. Mayring, Qualitative Content Analysis: A Step-by-Step Guide. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://digital.casalini.it/9781529766738
  83. J. Thomas and A. Harden, ‘Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews’, BMC Med Res Methodol, vol. 8, p. 45, 2008, doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45.
  84. A. Booth, M. Martyn-St James, M. Clowes, and A. Sutton, Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review, 3rd ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://digital.casalini.it/9781529759648
  85. G. P. Cimellaro, A. M. Reinhorn, and M. Bruneau, ‘Framework for Analytical Quantification of Disaster Resilience’, Eng Struct, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 3639–3649, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.08.008.
  86. A. Decò, P. Bocchini, and D. M. Frangopol, ‘A probabilistic approach for the prediction of seismic resilience of bridges’, Earthq Eng Struct Dyn, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 1469–1487, 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2282.
  87. M. Ouyang, L. Dueñas-Osorio, and X. Min, ‘A three-stage resilience analysis framework for urban infrastructure systems’, Structural Safety, vol. 36–37, pp. 23–31, 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2011.12.004.
  88. S. E. Chang and M. Shinozuka, ‘Measuring Improvements in the Disaster Resilience of Communities’, Earthquake Spectra, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 739–755, 2004, doi: 10.1193/1.1775796.
  89. G. P. Cimellaro, A. M. Reinhorn, and M. Bruneau, ‘Seismic Resilience of a Hospital System’, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, vol. 6, no. 1–2, pp. 127–144, 2010, doi: 10.1080/15732470802663847.
  90. P. Bocchini and D. M. Frangopol, ‘Restoration of Bridge Networks after an Earthquake: Multicriteria Intervention Optimization’, Earthquake Spectra, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 427–455, 2012, doi: 10.1193/1.4000019.
  91. M. Bruneau and A. Reinhorn, ‘Exploring the Concept of Seismic Resilience for Acute Care Facilities’, Earthquake Spectra, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 41–62, 2007, doi: 10.1193/1.2431396.
  92. G. P. Cimellaro, C. Renschler, A. M. Reinhorn, and L. Arendt, ‘PEOPLES: A Framework for Evaluating Resilience’, Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 142, no. 10, p. 4016063, 2016, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001514.
  93. R. Shaw and K. Goda, ‘From Disaster to Sustainable Civil Society: The Kobe Experience’, Disasters, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 16–40, 2004, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0361-3666.2004.00241.x.
  94. M. C. Schmidtlein, J. M. Shafer, M. Berry, and S. L. Cutter, ‘Modeled earthquake losses and social vulnerability in Charleston, South Carolina’, Applied Geography, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 269–281, 2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.06.001.
  95. W. Zhang, X. Xu, and X. Chen, ‘Social vulnerability assessment of earthquake disaster based on the catastrophe progression method: A Sichuan Province case study’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 24, pp. 361–372, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.06.022.
  96. G. Bernardini, R. Lovreglio, and E. Quagliarini, ‘Proposing behavior-oriented strategies for earthquake emergency evacuation: A behavioral data analysis from New Zealand, Italy and Japan’, Saf Sci, vol. 116, pp. 295–309, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.03.023.
  97. P. Yariyan, H. Zabihi, I. D. Wolf, M. Karami, and S. Amiriyan, ‘Earthquake risk assessment using an integrated Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process with Artificial Neural Networks based on GIS: A case study of Sanandaj in Iran’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 50, p. 101705, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101705.
  98. S. Panday, S. Rushton, J. Karki, J. Balen, and A. Barnes, ‘The role of social capital in disaster resilience in remote communities after the 2015 Nepal earthquake’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 55, p. 102112, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102112.
  99. Z. Ma, S. Guo, X. Deng, and D. Xu, ‘Community resilience and resident’s disaster preparedness: evidence from China’s earthquake-stricken areas’, Natural Hazards, vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 567–591, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11069-021-04695-9.
  100. A. J. Imperiale and F. Vanclay, ‘Experiencing local community resilience in action: Learning from post-disaster communities’, J Rural Stud, vol. 47, pp. 204–219, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.08.002.
  101. M. Ma, Y. Zhang, J. Zhang, M. Li, J. Zhu, and Y. Wang, ‘Assessment of urban seismic social vulnerability based on game theory combination and TOPSIS model: a case study of Changchun City’, Sci Rep, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 8189, 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-92372-3.
  102. A. Rawat, E. Witt, M. Roumyeh, and I. Lill, ‘Advanced Digital Technologies in the Post-Disaster Reconstruction Process—A Review Leveraging Small Language Models’, Buildings, vol. 14, no. 11, 2024, doi: 10.3390/buildings14113367.
  103. K. Kojima, K. Fujita, and I. Takewaki, ‘Building earthquake resilience in sustainable cities in terms of input energy’, Sustain Cities Soc, vol. 12, pp. 46–62, 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2014.01.004.
  104. I. Lapietra, R. Colacicco, D. Capolongo, M. La Salandra, A. Rinaldi, and P. Dellino, ‘Unveiling social vulnerability to natural hazards in the EEA and UK: A systematic review with insights for enhanced emergency planning and risk reduction’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 108, p. 104507, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104507.
  105. O. Ellegaard and J. A. Wallin, ‘The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?’, Scientometrics, vol. 105, no. 3, pp. 1809–1831, Jul. 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z.
  106. M. N. Olabi, ‘Evaluation of Removal Multi-Story Low-Rise RC Frame Demolition Using the Applied Element Method with Sequential Column Removal’, Turkish Journal of Engineering, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 222–236, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.31127/tuje.1536922.
  107. A. H. DERİNGÖL and E. M. GÜNEYİSİ, ‘Enhancing the seismic performance of high-rise buildings with lead rubber bearing isolators’, Turkish Journal of Engineering, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 99–107, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.31127/tuje.1026994.
  108. Ö. L. ERTUĞRUL and B. B. ZAHIN, ‘A parametric study on the dynamic lateral earth forces on retaining walls according to European and Turkish Building Earthquake Codes’, Turkish Journal of Engineering, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 196–207, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.31127/tuje.1100015.
  109. M. H. SARAÇOĞLU and A. ÖZKAYA, ‘Investigation of acceleration on non-structural building elements under earthquake effect’, Turkish Journal of Engineering, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 56–63, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.31127/tuje.1021866.
  110. R. Jain, S. K. Singh, D. Palaniappan, K. Parmar, and P. T, ‘Data-Driven Civil Engineering: Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning’, Turkish Journal of Engineering, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 354–377, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.31127/tuje.1581564.
  111. F. Khurshid and A. Y. Günal, ‘Harnessing earthquake generated glass and plastic waste for sustainable construction’, Turkish Journal of Engineering, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 394–402, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.31127/tuje.1405272.
  112. © Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/