SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kent Akademisi / 2026 / Cilt: 19 Sayı: 8

A Multi-Criteria Assessment of the Socioeconomic Outlook of the Provinces Affected by the Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes

Kahramanmaraş Depremlerinden Etkilenen İllerin Sosyoekonomik Görünümünün Çok Kriterli Değerlendirilmesi

Şule Bayazit Bedirhanoğlu(BİTLİS EREN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7545-7222
Pages
1–22
Publication Date
2026-10-26
🏛️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)

Combinative Distance-based Assessment (CODAS) and Multi-Attributive Ideal-Real Comparative Analysis (MAIRCA) replicate the SPOTIS ordering every year (ρ ≥ 0.955).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Two earthquakes centered in Kahramanmaraş, of Mw 7.7 and Mw 7.6, struck southern and southeastern Türkiye on 6 February 2023.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Seven Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK) indicators for 2022–2024 are analyzed: net migration rate, employment rate, unemployment rate, housing sales, construction permits, occupancy permits, and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Combinative Distance-based Assessment (CODAS) and Multi-Attributive Ideal-Real Comparative Analysis (MAIRCA) replicate the SPOTIS ordering every year (ρ ≥ 0.955).
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:çok kriterli karar verme · CCSD · SPOTIS

Abstract

Two earthquakes centered in Kahramanmaraş, of Mw 7.7 and Mw 7.6, struck southern and southeastern Türkiye on 6 February 2023. Eleven provinces were officially designated as directly affected: Adana, Adıyaman, Diyarbakır, Elazığ, Gaziantep, Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, Kilis, Malatya, Osmaniye, and Şanlıurfa. This study examines how these provinces’ socioeconomic positions changed after the disaster and whether a single composite ranking adequately captures these shifts. Seven Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK) indicators for 2022–2024 are analyzed: net migration rate, employment rate, unemployment rate, housing sales, construction permits, occupancy permits, and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Weights come from the Correlation Coefficient and Standard Deviation (CCSD) method, which penalizes criteria whose information others already represent. Rankings are generated with the Stable Preference Ordering Towards Ideal Solution (SPOTIS) method, whose fixed bounds prevent rank reversal. Each year is weighted independently, enabling direct comparison of pre- and post-disaster structures. The weights change substantially: GDP per capita leads in 2022 (0.2141) and remains high in 2023, whereas housing sales (0.1764) and the unemployment rate (0.1713) lead in 2024. Malatya rises from fourth to first; Hatay drops to last in 2023 and returns to seventh; Diyarbakır and Şanlıurfa remain eleventh and tenth, respectively. Criterion-level decomposition shows that aggregate rankings can mislead: Adıyaman’s Absolute Shock of −0.27 suggests mild improvement, yet its net migration rate falls by 10.02 standard deviations while its construction permits rise by 5.40. Combinative Distance-based Assessment (CODAS) and Multi-Attributive Ideal-Real Comparative Analysis (MAIRCA) replicate the SPOTIS ordering every year (ρ ≥ 0.955).

Özet

6 Şubat 2023'te Kahramanmaraş merkezli, Mw 7,7 ve Mw 7,6 büyüklüğünde iki deprem Türkiye’nin güney ve güneydoğusunu vurmuştur. Adana, Adıyaman, Diyarbakır, Elazığ, Gaziantep, Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, Kilis, Malatya, Osmaniye ve Şanlıurfa resmi olarak doğrudan etkilenen iller olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu çalışma, bu illerin sosyoekonomik konumlarının afet öncesinden afet sonrasına nasıl değiştiğini ve tek bir bileşik sıralamanın bu değişimleri yeterince yansıtıp yansıtmadığını incelemektedir. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK) tarafından yayımlanan 2022-2024 yıllarına ait yedi gösterge analiz edilmiştir: net göç oranı, istihdam oranı, işsizlik oranı, konut satışları, inşaat izinleri, oturma izinleri ve kişi başına gayri safi yurt içi hasıla (GSYİH). Ağırlıklar, bilgisi diğer kriterlerce zaten temsil edilen kriterleri cezalandıran Korelasyon Katsayısı ve Standart Sapma (CCSD) yöntemiyle; sıralamalar ise sabit sınırları sıralamanın tersine dönmesini engelleyen İdeal Çözüme Yönelik Kararlı Tercih Sıralaması (SPOTIS) yöntemiyle elde edilmiştir. Her yıl bağımsız olarak ağırlıklandırılarak afet öncesi ve sonrası yapılar doğrudan karşılaştırılmıştır. Gösterge ağırlıkları önemli ölçüde değişmektedir: kişi başına GSYİH 2022'de en yüksek ağırlığa (0,2141) sahiptir ve 2023'te de yüksek kalmaktadır; 2024'te ise konut satışları (0,1764) ve işsizlik oranı (0,1713) öne çıkmaktadır. Malatya dördüncülükten birinciliğe yükselmiş; Hatay 2023'te son sıraya düşüp yedinci sıraya geri dönmüş; Diyarbakır ve Şanlıurfa sırasıyla on birinci ve onuncu sırada kalmıştır. Kriter düzeyinde ayrıştırma, toplu sıralamaların yanıltıcı olabileceğini göstermektedir: Adıyaman’ın −0,27'lik Mutlak Şok değeri hafif bir iyileşmeye işaret etse de net göç oranı 10,02 standart sapma azalırken inşaat izinleri 5,40 artmıştır. Birleşik Uzaklık Tabanlı Değerlendirme (CODAS) ve Çok Nitelikli İdeal-Gerçek Karşılaştırmalı Analiz (MAIRCA), SPOTIS sıralamasını her yıl tekrarlamaktadır (ρ ≥ 0,955).

🔖

Cite This Article

Bedirhanoğlu, Ş. B. (2026). A Multi-Criteria Assessment of the Socioeconomic Outlook of the Provinces Affected by the Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes. Kent Akademisi, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 8, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.2004605

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (41)

  1. Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı (AFAD). (2023). 06 Şubat 2023 Pazarcık-Elbistan (Kahramanmaraş) Raporu. https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/assets/pdf/Kahramanmara%C5%9F%20Depremi%20%20Raporu_02.06.2023.pdf
  2. Aksoy, C. G., Chupilkin, M., Koczan, Z., & Plekhanov, A. (2024). Unearthing the economic and social consequences of earthquakes (EBRD Working Paper No. 293). European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4810773
  3. Barone, G., & Mocetti, S. (2014). Natural disasters, growth and institutions: A tale of two earthquakes. Journal of Urban Economics, 84, 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2014.09.002
  4. Baseler, T. A., & Hennig, J. J. (2023). Disastrous displacement: The long-run impacts of landslides (Policy Research Working Paper No. 10535). World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-10535 Botzen, W. J. W., Deschenes, O., & Sanders, M. (2019). The economic impacts of natural disasters: A review of models and empirical studies. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 13(2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez004
  5. 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
  6. Cavallo, E. A., & Noy, I. (2011). The economics of natural disasters: A survey (IDB Working Paper No. 35). Inter-American Development Bank. https://doi.org/10.18235/0010924
  7. Chen, X., Li, X., & Liu, Z. (2023). Evaluation of earthquake disaster recovery patterns and influencing factors: A case study of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. All Earth, 35(1), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/27669645.2023.2207942
  8. Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A. M., & Bruneau, M. (2010). Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience. Engineering Structures, 32(11), 3639–3649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.08.008
  9. Cinelli, M., Kadziński, M., Gonzalez, M., & Słowiński, R. (2020). How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy. Omega, 96, 102261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2020.102261
  10. Dahooie, J. H., Zavadskas, E. K., Firoozfar, H. R., Vanaki, A. S., Mohammadi, N., & Brauers, W. K. M. (2019). An improved fuzzy MULTIMOORA approach for multi-criteria decision making based on objective weighting method (CCSD) and its application to technological forecasting method selection. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 79, 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2018.12.008
  11. Demir, A., Celebi, E., Ozturk, H., Ozcan, Z., Ozocak, A., Bol, E., Sert, S., Sahin, F. Z., Arslan, E., & Dere Yaman, Z. (2024). Destructive impact of successive high magnitude earthquakes occurred in Türkiye's Kahramanmaraş on February 6, 2023. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 22(15), 7591–7628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-01865-5
  12. Dezert, J., Tchamova, A., Han, D., & Tacnet, J.-M. (2020). The SPOTIS rank reversal free method for multi-criteria decision-making support. In 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION) (pp. 1–8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.23919/FUSION45008.2020.9190347
  13. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H
  14. Ersayin, K. (2025). Post-disaster temporary shelter site location determination with BWM and GIS: A case study of Tokat, Turkey. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, 10, 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2024.2404797
  15. Ghaffarian, S., Shafapourtehrany, M., Lagap, U., Batur, M., Özener, H., Kılcı, R. E., & Karaman, H. (2025). Earthquake-based multi-hazard resilience assessment: A case study of Istanbul, Turkey (neighborhood level). npj Natural Hazards, 2, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-025-00065-8
  16. Güneş, A., & Dinçer, G. (2025). Depremlerin makroekonomik etkileri üzerine bir değerlendirme. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 36(137), 419–457. https://doi.org/10.5455/ey.45002
  17. Huang, L., Liu, Q., & Tang, Y. (2024). Long-term economic impact of disasters: Evidence from multiple earthquakes in China. World Development, 174, 106446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106446
  18. Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications — A state-of-the-art survey. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9
  19. International Organization for Migration. (2023). IOM Türkiye: 2023 earthquakes displacement overview. IOM Türkiye. https://reliefweb.int/report/turkiye/iom-2023-earthquakes-displacement-overview-turkiye-march-2023
  20. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2016). A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 50(3), 25–44.
  21. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2021). Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13(4), 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040525
  22. Klomp, J., & Valckx, K. (2014). Natural disasters and economic growth: A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 26, 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.006
  23. Lazzaroni, S., & van Bergeijk, P. A. G. (2014). Natural disasters' impact, factors of resilience and development: A meta-analysis of the macroeconomic literature. Ecological Economics, 107, 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.015
  24. Li, F., Liao, S., Fu, X., & Liu, T. (2025). NPP-VIIRS nighttime lights illustrate the post-earthquake damage and subsequent economic recovery in Hatay Province, Turkey. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 14(4), 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi14040149
  25. Malakar, S., & Rai, A. K. (2023). Estimating seismic vulnerability in West Bengal by AHP-WSM and AHP-VIKOR. Natural Hazards Research, 3(3), 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nhres.2023.06.001
  26. Marangoz, M., Görgülü, H. H., & İzci, Ç. (2026). The economic impacts of the February 6, 2023, Kahramanmaraş-centered earthquakes on entrepreneurs in Türkiye. International Journal of Contemporary Economics and Administrative Sciences, 16(1), 20-54. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20153198
  27. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffmann, A., & Giovannini, E. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264043466-en
  28. Pamučar, D., Vasin, L., & Lukovac, V. (2014). Selection of railway level crossings for investing in security equipment using hybrid DEMATEL-MAIRCA model. In XVI International Scientific-Expert Conference on Railway Railcon (pp. 89–92).
  29. Peng, Y. (2015). Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods. Annals of Operations Research, 234(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-012-1253-8 Rai, A. K., Malakar, S., & Goswami, S. (2024). Evaluating seismic risk by MCDM and machine learning for the eastern coast of India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 196, 471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-024-12615-0
  30. Resmî Gazete. (2023a). Cumhurbaşkanı Kararı, Karar Sayısı: 6785 (8 Şubat 2023 tarih ve 32098 sayılı Resmî Gazete). https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2023/02/20230208-1.pdf Resmî Gazete. (2023b, 23 Şubat). Cumhurbaşkanı Kararı, Karar Sayısı: 6831. Sayı: 32113. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2023/02/20230223.htm
  31. Sabırsız, E., & Şöhret, M. (2024). 6 Şubat depremlerinin Türkiye ekonomisi üzerindeki makroekonomik, sosyal ve çevresel etkileri. Akademik Yaklaşımlar Dergisi, 15(1) Deprem Özel Sayısı, 571–597. https://doi.org/10.54688/ayd.1390984
  32. Silahtar, A., Senkaya, M., & Karaaslan, H. (2025). Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model for building damages in the Kahramanmaraş 2023 earthquakes sequence based on soil, ground motion and earthquake source-path parameters. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 23(12), 5137–5159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-025-02139-4
  33. Skidmore, M., & Toya, H. (2002). Do natural disasters promote long-run growth? Economic Inquiry, 40(4), 664–687. https://doi.org/10.1093/ei/40.4.664
  34. T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı. (2023). 2023 Kahramanmaraş ve Hatay depremleri raporu. Ankara. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-Kahramanmaras-ve-Hatay-Depremleri-Raporu.pdf
  35. T.C. Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı. (2019). İllerin ve bölgelerin sosyo-ekonomik gelişmişlik sıralaması araştırması SEGE-2017 (Hazırlayanlar: S. Acar, M. C. Meydan, L. Bilen Kazancık ve M. Işık). Kalkınma Ajansları Genel Müdürlüğü. https://www.sanayi.gov.tr/merkez-birimi/b94224510b7b/sege/il-sege-raporlari
  36. Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK). (2025). Data portal. https://data.tuik.gov.tr
  37. Ulutaş, A., Karabasevic, D., Popovic, G., Stanujkic, D., Nguyen, P. T., & Karaköy, Ç. (2020). Development of a novel integrated CCSD-ITARA-MARCOS decision-making approach for stackers selection in a logistics system. Mathematics, 8(10), 1672. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8101672
  38. Vuran, E., Serhatoğlu, C., Timurağaoğlu, M. Ö., Smyrou, E., Bal, İ. E., & Livaoğlu, R. (2025). Damage observations of RC buildings from 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence and discussion on the seismic code regulations. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 23, 1153–1182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01843-3
  39. Wang, Y.-M., & Luo, Y. (2010). Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attribute weights in multiple attribute decision making. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 51(1–2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2009.07.016
  40. Yanardağ, R., Toper, F., & Yağar, F. (2025). 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş merkezli depremlerin psiko-sosyal ve ekonomik etkilerinin keşfedilmesine ilişkin nitel bir çalışma. Sosyoekonomi, 33(63), 551–573. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2025.01.25
  41. Yuan, Y., Wang, C., Liu, S., Chen, Z., Ma, X., Li, W., Zhang, L., & Yu, B. (2023). The changes in nighttime lights caused by the Turkey–Syria earthquake using NOAA-20 VIIRS day/night band data. Remote Sensing, 15(13), 3438. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15133438