SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Deprem Araştırma Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1

Evaluation of Site Selection for the Faculty of Architecture in the Post-Earthquake Reconstruction Process Using Delphi, Fuzzy DEMATEL, and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods

Deprem Sonrası Yeniden Yapılanma Sürecinde Mimarlık Fakültesi Yer Seçiminin Delphi, Bulanık DEMATEL ve Bulanık TOPSIS Yöntemleriyle Değerlendirilmesi

Şeyma Yiğit Uzunali(Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Department of Landscape Architecture, Hatay, Türkiye)0000-0003-0837-0703
Pages
60–74
Publication Date
2026-04-30
🏛️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 study contributes to the systematic and scientific evaluation of site selection for architecture faculties.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:On February 6, 2023, the earthquakes in Türkiye caused severe destruction in Hatay, leading to the complete collapse of the Faculty of Architecture building at Hatay Mustafa Kemal University.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The analysis revealed that the A1 alternative (HMKU Tayfur Sökmen Central Campus) is the most suitable location with a closeness coefficient of 0.734.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study contributes to the systematic and scientific evaluation of site selection for architecture faculties.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Yer seçimi · Delphi · Bulanık DEMATEL

Abstract

On February 6, 2023, the earthquakes in Türkiye caused severe destruction in Hatay, leading to the complete collapse of the Faculty of Architecture building at Hatay Mustafa Kemal University. In the post-earthquake reconstruction process, determining an appropriate site for the new faculty building became essential. This study identifies location criteria using the Delphi technique, analyzes their weight coefficients through the Fuzzy DEMATEL method, and ranks alternatives via the Fuzzy TOPSIS method. A hybrid methodological approach ensured analytical consistency and reliability. The analysis revealed that the A1 alternative (HMKU Tayfur Sökmen Central Campus) is the most suitable location with a closeness coefficient of 0.734. The study contributes to the systematic and scientific evaluation of site selection for architecture faculties.

Özet

6 Şubat 2023 tarihinde Türkiye’de meydana gelen depremler, Hatay ilinde büyük bir yıkıma neden olmuş ve Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi’ne bağlı Mimarlık Fakültesi binası da bu süreçte tamamen yıkılmıştır. Deprem sonrası yeniden yapılanma sürecinde fakülte binası için uygun yer seçiminin yapılması kaçınılmaz bir gereklilik haline gelmiştir. Bu çalışmada, mimarlık fakültelerinin lokasyonu için değerlendirilmesi gereken kriterler Delphi tekniğiyle belirlenmiş, kriterlerin ağırlık katsayıları Bulanık DEMATEL tekniğiyle analiz edilmiş ve alternatiflerin öncelik sıralaması Bulanık TOPSIS tekniğiyle yapılmıştır. Hibrit bir metodolojik yaklaşım kullanılarak analitik bütünlük ve doğruluk sağlanmıştır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, 0.734 yakınlık katsayısıyla A1 (HMKÜ Tayfur Sökmen Merkez Kampüsü) alternatifi en uygun seçenek olarak belirlenmiştir. Çalışma mimarlık fakültelerinin yer seçiminde ideal konumlandırmanın sistematik ve bilimsel bir yaklaşımla değerlendirilmesine önemli bir katkı sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Uzunali, Ş. Y. (2026). Evaluation of Site Selection for the Faculty of Architecture in the Post-Earthquake Reconstruction Process Using Delphi, Fuzzy DEMATEL, and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods. Türk Deprem Araştırma Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 60–74. https://doi.org/10.46464/tdad.1798388

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (60)

  1. Agrebi M., 2021. Decision-making from multiple uncertain experts: case of distribution center location selection, Soft Computing, 25(6), 4525-4544.
  2. Ahirwal M.K., Kumar P., 2023. Educational institutions selection using Analytic Hierarchy Process based on National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) criteria, Interchange, 54(2), 203-227.
  3. Alossta A.E., 2021. Resolving a location selection problem by means of an integrated AHP-RAFSI approach, Reports in Mechanical Engineering, 2(1), 135-142.
  4. Alzahrani F.A., 2023. Optimal site selection for women university using neutrosophic multi-criteria decision making approach, Buildings, 13(1), 152.
  5. Aruldoss M.T., 2013. A survey on multi criteria decision making methods and its applications, American Journal of Information Systems, 1(1), 31-43.
  6. Asante-Yeboah E., Koo H., Sieber S., Furst C., 2023. A Participatory Scenario and Spatially Explicit Approach for Envisioning the Future scenarios of Land-Use/Land- cover Change on Ecosystem Service Provisioning to Inform Sustainable Landscape Management: The Case of Coastal Southwestern Ghana, Research Square, https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2534813/v1
  7. Aydin O.T., 2013. Location as a competitive advantage to attract students: An empirical study from a Turkish Foundation University, International Review of Management and Marketing, 3(4), 204-211.
  8. Badi I., Kridish M., 2020. Landfill site selection using a novel FUCOM-CODAS model: A case study in Libya, Scientific African, 9, e00537.
  9. Bilgin N.G., Bozma G., Riaz M., 2024. Location selection criteria for a military base in border region using N-AHP method, AIMS Mathematics, 9(3), 7529-7551.
  10. Biswas S., Pamucar D., 2020. Facility location selection for b-schools in indian context: A multi-criteria group decision based analysis, Axioms, 9(3), 77.
  11. Bowles N., 1999. The Delphi Technique, Nursing Standard (through 2013), 13(45), 32.
  12. Bozkurt O., Turgay E., Seriye S., 1998. Dictionary of Public Administration (2nd edition), Public Administration Agency of Türkiye and the Middle East.
  13. Chakraborty R., Ray A., Dan P., 2013. Multi criteria decision making methods for location selection of distribution centers, International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 4(4), 491-504.
  14. Chalmers J., Armour M., 2019. The delphi technique, (In: Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences, Editor: Liamputtong P., Springer, Singapore), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_99
  15. Chen C.T., 2000. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment, Fuzzy sets and systems, 114(1), 1-9.
  16. Chou T.Y., Hsu C L., Chen M.C., 2008. A fuzzy multi-criteria decision model for international tourist hotels location selection. International journal of hospitality management, 27(2), 293-301.
  17. Christiaanse K., 2006. Campus to city: Urban design for universities, (In: Campus and the city: Urban design for the knowledge society, Editors: Hoeger K., Christiaanse K., 3rd ed., pp. 80–82), Prentice Hall.
  18. Chumbi W.E., Martínez-Minga R., Zambrano-Asanza S., Leite J.B., Franco J.F., 2024. Suitable site selection of public charging stations: a fuzzy topsis mcda framework on capacity substation assessment, Energies, 17(14), 3452.
  19. Ding L., Zeng Y., 2015. Evaluation of Chinese higher education by TOPSIS and IEW-The case of 68 universities belonging to the Ministry of Education in China, China Economic Review, 36, 341-358.
  20. Ertuğrul İ., Karakaşoğlu N., 2008. Comparison of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods for facility location selection, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 39, 783-795.
  21. Feng C., Ma R., 2020. Identification of the factors that influence service innovation in manufacturing enterprises by using the fuzzy DEMATEL method, Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, 120002.
  22. Gabus A., Fontela E., 1972. World problems, an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL, Battelle Geneva Research Center, Geneva, Switzerland, 1(8), 12-14.
  23. Gergin R.E., Peker I., Baki B., Tuzkaya U.R., Tanyas M., 2023. Oilseed warehouse location selection with an integrated approach: a case of Turkey, Kybernetes, 52(9), 3667-3705.
  24. Gharakhani D., 2012. The Evaluation of Supplier Selection Criteria by Fuzzy Dematel Method, Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(4), 3215-3224.
  25. Giri B.C., Molla M.U., Biswas P., 2022. Pythagorean fuzzy DEMATEL method for supplier selection in sustainable supply chain management, Expert Systems with Applications, 193, 116396.
  26. Green R.A., 2014. The Delphi technique in educational research, Sage Open, 4(2), 2158244014529773.
  27. Han H., Trimi S., 2018. A fuzzy TOPSIS method for performance evaluation of reverse logistics in social commerce platforms, Expert Systems with Applications, 103, 133-145.
  28. Hatami-Marbini A., Kangi F., 2017. An extension of fuzzy TOPSIS for a group decision making with an application to Tehran stock exchange Applied Soft Computing, 52, 1084-1097.
  29. Jeong J., García-Moruno L., Hernandez-Blanco J., Sanchez-Rios A., 2016. Planning of Rural Housings in Reservoir Areas Under (mass) Tourism Based on a Fuzzy DEMATEL-GIS/MCDA Hybrid and Participatory Method for Alange, Spain, Habitat International, 57.
  30. Kabir G., Sumi R.S., 2012. Selection of concrete production facility location integrating fuzzy AHP with TOPSIS method, International Journal of Productivity Management and Assessment Technologies (IJPMAT), 1(1), 40-59.
  31. Khorshidi M., Erkayman B., Albayrak Ö., Kılıç R., Demir H.İ. 2022. Solar power plant location selection using integrated fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy MOORA method, International Journal of Ambient Energy, 43(1), 7400-7409.
  32. Li R., 1999. Fuzzy Method in Group Decision Making, Computers And Mathematics With Applications, 38(1), 91-101.
  33. Mbundu T.L., Mbuli N., 2024. Application of Delphi Technique in Determining the Potential Criteria of Substation Site Selection, In 2024 IEEE PES/IAS PowerAfrica IEEE, 1-5.
  34. Miç P., Antmen Z.F., 2021. A decision-making model based on TOPSIS, WASPAS, and MULTIMOORA methods for university location selection problem, Sage Open, 11(3), 21582440211040115.
  35. Mohammed A.M., Ukai T., 2025. University campuses’ location-allocation: a case study of Egypt with insights from the Japanese context, Open House International, 50 (4): 646-671, https://doi.org/10.1108/OHI-01-2024-0022
  36. Montecinos J.B., Grünfelder T., 2022. What if we focus on developing commonalities? Results of an international and interdisciplinary Delphi study on transcultural competence, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 89, 42-55.
  37. Mousavi S.M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R., Heydar M., Ebrahimnejad S., 2013. Multi-criteria decision making for plant location selection: an integrated Delphi–AHP–PROMETHEE methodology, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 38, 1255-1268.
  38. Nezhad M.Z., Nazarian-Jashnabadi J., Rezazadeh J., Mehraeen M., Bagheri R., 2023. Assessing dimensions influencing IoT implementation readiness in industries: A fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy AHP analysis, Journal of Soft Computing and Decision Analytics, 1(1), 102-123.
  39. Ozcan T., Celebi N., Esnaf S., 2011. Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methodologies and implementation of a warehouse location selection problem, Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9773-9779.
  40. Pour S., Hamzeh S., Samany N., 2017. Site Selection of Solar Power Plant using GIS-Fuzzy DEMATEL Model: A Case Study of Bam and Jiroft Cities of Kerman Province in Iran, Journal of Solar Energy Research (JSER), 24, 323-328.
  41. Rudnik K., Kacprzak D., 2017. Fuzzy TOPSIS method with ordered fuzzy numbers for flow control in a manufacturing system, Applied Soft Computing, 52, 1020-1041.
  42. Sagnak M., Berberoglu Y., Memis İ., Yazgan O., 2021. Sustainable collection center location selection in emerging economy for electronic waste with fuzzy Best-Worst and fuzzy TOPSIS, Waste Management, 127, 37-47.
  43. Skulmoski G., Hartman F., Krahn J., 2007. The Delphi Method for Graduate, Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 1-21.
  44. Sudore R.L., Lum H.D., You J.J., Hanson L.C., Meier D.E., Pantilat S.Z., Matlock D.D., Rietjens J.A.C., Korfage I.J., Ritchie C.S., Kutner J.S., Teno J.M., Thomas J., McMahan R.D., Heyland D.K., 2017. Defining advance care planning for adults: a consensus definition from a multidisciplinary Delphi panel. Journal of pain and symptom management, 53(5), 821-832.
  45. Şahin M., 2021. Location selection by multi-criteria decision-making methods based on objective and subjective weightings, Knowledge and Information Systems, 63(8), 1991-2021.
  46. Tabari M.K., 2008. A new method for location selection: a hybrid analysis, Applied Mathematics and Computation, 206(2), 598-606.
  47. Turhan G.A., 2013. Literature review on selection criteria of store location based on performance measures, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 391-402.
  48. Türk A., Yavuz V.A., 2023. Determination of location selection criteria and their importance levels for air cargo companies: a case from Turkiye, Journal of Aviation, 7(1), 100-109.
  49. Türkan Y.S., Alioğulları E., Tüylü D., 2024. Optimizing Location Selection for International Education Fairs: An Interval-Valued Neutrosophic Fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution Approach, Sustainability, 16(23), https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310227
  50. Türkben R., 2022. Determination of a police station location with Fuzzy TOPSIS method: Adıyaman Province example, Adıyaman: Adıyaman University, Graduate Education Institute, Business Administration Department, Master's Thesis.
  51. Uzunali A., Acar C., 2025. An Examination of the Perceptual Changes in Significant Places Shaping the Urban Identity of Hatay After the Earthquake, Turk Deprem Arastirma Dergisi, 7(2), 310-320, DOI:10.46464/tdad.1644898.
  52. Wolf I., Sobhani P., Esmaeilzadeh H., 2023. Assessing Changes in Land Use/Land Cover and Ecological Risk to Conserve Protected Areas in Urban-Rural Contexts, Land, 12(1), 231.
  53. Wu W., Lee Y., 2007. Developing Global Managers’ Competencies Using The Fuzzy Dematel Method, Expert Systems With Applications, 499-507.
  54. Xue L., Le Bot G., Van Petegem W., van Wieringen A., 2018. Defining interdisciplinary competencies for audiological rehabilitation: findings from a modified Delphi study, International Journal of Audiology, 57(2), 81-90.
  55. Yan F., Yang X., Zhang L., Cheng H., Bai L., Yang F., 2023. Establishing entrustable professional activities for psychiatry residents in China, BMC Med. Educ., 23(1), 623.
  56. Yigit Uzunali S., Berberoglu S., 2025. Agricultural land suitability analysis with parametric and nonparametric techniques: The case of Büyük Menderes River Basin, Türkiye, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 229 (109754).
  57. Yildiz A., Demir Y., 2019. Bulanık TOPSISYöntemiyle Türkiye’nin Yerli Otomobili İçin En Uygun Fabrika Yerinin Seçimi, BMIJ, 7(4), 1427-1445.
  58. Yong D., 2006. Plant location selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 28, 839-844.
  59. Yousuf M.I., 2007. The Delphi Technique, Essays in Education, 20, 80-90.
  60. Zhu X., Gao L., Wei X., Li T., Shao M., 2023. Progress and prospect of studies of Benggang erosion in southern China, Geoderma, 438, 116656.