Damage-Aid Alignment and Reconstruction Pace Diagnostics for Post-Earthquake Recovery
Downloads
Post-earthquake reconstruction raises two governance questions that are rarely addressed jointly. Whether affected provinces receive allocations proportional to measured damage, and whether physical delivery keeps pace with official plans, remain open in the empirical literature. This study addresses both the 2023 Kahramanmaraş sequence, which affected eleven Turkish provinces and generated recovery needs of approximately USD 103.6 billion. Two rule-based diagnostics are specified, the Damage–Aid Alignment index, which combines Spearman rank correlation with Theil T divergence, and the Reconstruction Pace Index, a monthly delivery-to-plan rate governed by a pre-specified run rule. Both diagnostics operate on an author-compiled corpus of 15,928 building-level records aggregated to a province–month panel spanning March 2023 to August 2024 and cross-checked against independent remote-sensing products. A two-way fixed-effects panel regression complements the analysis. Alignment with need is strong, with a Spearman correlation of 0.836 and a Theil T of 0.087, though Hatay is over-allocated by 10.4 percentage points and Adıyaman is under-allocated by 6.0. Persistent pace shortfalls in three provinces are clear within two months and reflect mobilization frictions rather than systemic failure. The framework provides a low-friction, auditable pathway to routine post-disaster performance monitoring.
Downloads
[1] AFAD. (2023). 06 February 2023 Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş) Mw 7.7 and Elbistan (Kahramanmaraş) Mw 7.6 Earthquakes Preliminary Assessment Report. Ministry of Interior, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD), Ankara, Türkiye.
[2] TBDY-2018. (2018). Türkiye Building Earthquake Code. Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, Ankara, Türkiye.
[3] Cetin, K. O, Ilgac, M., & Cakir, E. (2023). Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on February 6, 2023, Pazarcik Mw=7.7 and Elbistan Mw=7.6, Kahramanmaras–Turkiye Earthquakes. Report No. 23/01, Earthquake Engineering Research Center (METU/EERC), Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Türkiye.
[4] He, L., Feng, G., Xu, W., Wang, Y., Xiong, Z., Gao, H., & Liu, X. (2023). Coseismic Kinematics of the 2023 Kahramanmaras, Turkey Earthquake Sequence from InSAR and Optical Data. Geophysical Research Letters, 50(17), 2023 104693. doi:10.1029/2023GL104693.
[5] Barbot, S., Luo, H., Wang, T., Hamiel, Y., Piatibratova, O., Javed, M. T., Braitenberg, C., & Gurbuz, G. (2023). Slip distribution of the February 6, 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey earthquake sequence in the East Anatolian Fault Zone. Seismica, 2(3). doi:10.26443/seismica.v2i3.502.
[6] Jia, Z., Jin, Z., Marchandon, M., Ulrich, T., Gabriel, A. A., Fan, W., Shearer, P., Zou, X., Rekoske, J., Bulut, F., Garagon, A., & Fialko, Y. (2023). The complex dynamics of the 2023 Kahramanmaras, Turkey, Mw 7.8-7.7 earthquake doublet. Science, 381(6661), 985–990. doi:10.1126/science.adi0685.
[7] Gokceoglu, C. (2023). 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş – Türkiye Earthquakes: A General Overview. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLVIII-M-1-2023, 417–424. doi:10.5194/isprs-archives-xlviii-m-1-2023-417-2023.
[8] Kobayashi, T., Munekane, H., Kuwahara, M., & Furui, H. (2023). Insights on the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake, Turkey, from InSAR: fault locations, rupture styles and induced deformation. Geophysical Journal International, 236(2), 1068–1088. doi:10.1093/gji/ggad464.
[9] Reitman, N. G., Briggs, R., Barnhart, W. D., Jobe, J. A., Duross, C. B., Hatem, A. E., Gold, R. D., Akçiz, S., Koehler, R., DMejstrik, J. D., & Akçiz, J. (2024). Fault Rupture Mapping of the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye, Earthquake Sequence from Satellite Data. U.S. Geological Survey Data Release, Reston, Virginia. doi:10.5066/P985I7U2.
[10] Copernicus Emergency Management Service. (2023). EMSR648: Earthquakes in Türkiye — Activation Overview. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Brussels, Belgium. Available online: https://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/list-of-components/EMSR648 (accessed on April 2026).
[11] Yun, S. H., Hudnut, K., Owen, S., Webb, F., Simons, M., Sacco, P., Gurrola, E., Manipon, G., Liang, C., Fielding, E., Milillo, P., Hua, H., & Coletta, A. (2015). Rapid damage mapping for the 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha Earthquake Using synthetic aperture radar data from COSMO-SkyMed and ALOS-2 satellites. Seismological Research Letters, 86(6), 1549–1556. doi:10.1785/0220150152.
[12] NASA-JPL Advanced Rapid Imaging and Analysis (ARIA). (2023). Damage Proxy Map and Displacement Products for the February 2023 Türkiye–Syria Earthquakes. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Washington, United States. Available online: https://aria.jpl.nasa.gov (accessed on April 2026).
[13] Ferrentino, E., Nunziata, F., Buono, A., Urciuoli, A., & Migliaccio, M. (2020). Multipolarization Time Series of Sentinel-1 SAR Imagery to Analyze Variations of Reservoirs’ Water Body. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 13, 840–846. doi:10.1109/JSTARS.2019.2961563.
[14] Jung, J., & Yun, S. H. (2020). Evaluation of coherent and incoherent landslide detection methods based on synthetic aperture radar for rapid response: A case study for the 2018 Hokkaido landslides. Remote Sensing, 12(2), 265. doi:10.3390/rs12020265.
[15] Strategy and Budget Office of the Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye. (2024). 2023 Kahramanmaraş and Hatay Earthquakes Report (Türkiye Earthquakes Recovery and Reconstruction Assessment — TERRA). Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye, Ankara, Türkiye. Available online: https://www.sbb.gov.tr (accessed on April 2026).
[16] Apostolaki, S., Riga, E., & Pitilakis, D. (2024). Rapid damage assessment effectiveness for the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Türkiye earthquake sequence. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 111, 104691. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104691.
[17] Brown, D., Saito, K., Spence, R., Chenvidyakarn, T., Adams, B., Mcmillan, A., & Platt, S. (2008). Indicators for measuring, monitoring and evaluating post-disaster recovery. Proceedings 6th International Workshop on Remote Sensing for Disaster App, 11-12 September, 2008, Pavia, Italy.
[18] Horney, J., Dwyer, C., Aminto, M., Berke, P., & Smith, G. (2017). Developing indicators to measure post-disaster community recovery in the United States. Disasters, 41(1), 124–149. doi:10.1111/disa.12190.
[19] Geiß, C., & Taubenböck, H. (2013). Remote sensing contributing to assess earthquake risk: From a literature review towards a roadmap. Natural Hazards, 68(1), 7–48. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0322-2.
[20] Ghaffarian, S., Kerle, N., & Filatova, T. (2018). Remote sensing-based proxies for urban disaster risk management and resilience: A review. Remote Sensing, 10(11), 1760. doi:10.3390/rs10111760.
[21] Dell’Acqua, F., & Gamba, P. (2012). Remote sensing and earthquake damage assessment: Experiences, limits, and perspectives. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(10), 2876–2890. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2012.2196404.
[22] Altaie, M. R., Dishar, M. M., & Muhsin, I. F. (2023). Fundamental Challenges and Management Opportunities in Post Disaster Reconstruction Project. Civil Engineering Journal, 9(9), 2161–2174. doi:10.28991/CEJ-2023-09-09-05.
[23] Bakr, E. H., Elbeltagi, E., & Tantawy, M. (2025). BIM Utilization to Eliminate Claims, Risks, and Improve Productivity in Construction Projects. Civil Engineering Journal, 11(12), 5100–5131. doi:10.28991/CEJ-2025-011-12-011.
[24] Johnson, L. A., & Mamula-Seadon, L. (2014). Transforming governance: How national policies and organizations for managing disaster recovery evolved following the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra, 30(1), 577–605. doi:10.1193/032513EQS078M.
[25] Cho, A. (2014). Post‐tsunami recovery and reconstruction: governance issues and implications of the Great East Japan Earthquake. Disasters, 38(s2), 157-178. doi:10.1111/disa.12068.
[26] Ganapati, N. E., & Ganapati, S. (2008). Enabling Participatory Planning After Disasters: A Case Study of the World Bank’s Housing Reconstruction in Turkey. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(1), 41–59. doi:10.1080/01944360802546254.
[27] Platt, S., & So, E. (2017). Speed or deliberation: a comparison of post-disaster recovery in Japan, Turkey, and Chile. Disasters, 41(4), 696–727. doi:10.1111/disa.12219.
[28] Montgomery, D. C. (2020). Introduction to statistical quality control. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, United States.
[29] AFAD. (2022). Türkiye Disaster Response Plan (TAMP). Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Republic of Türkiye, Ministry of Interior, Ankara, Türkiye.
[30] Kim, K., & Olshansky, R. B. (2014). The theory and practice of building back better. Journal of the American Planning Association, 80(4), 289–292. doi:10.1080/01944363.2014.988597.
[31] El Hage, J., Shahrour, I., Hage Chehade, F., & Abi Farraj, F. (2023). A comprehensive assessment of buildings for post-disaster sustainable reconstruction: A case study of Beirut Port. Sustainability, 15(18), 13433. doi:10.3390/su151813433.
[32] Murakami, K., Wood, D. M., Tomita, H., Miyake, S., Shiraki, R., Murakami, K., ... & Dimmer, C. (2014). Planning innovation and post-disaster reconstruction: The case of Tohoku, Japan/Reconstruction of tsunami-devastated fishing villages in the Tohoku region of Japan and the challenges for planning/Post-disaster reconstruction in Iwate and new planning challenges for Japan/Towards a “network community” for the displaced town of Namie, FukushimaResilience design and community support in Iitate Village in the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster/Evolving place governance innovations and .... Planning Theory & Practice, 15(2), 237-242. doi:10.1080/14649357.2014.902909.
[33] Tian, R., Zhang, Y., Peng, L., Wang, Y., Wang, W., & Gu, Y. (2024). Measurement of flood resilience of metro station based on combination weighting-cloud model. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 114, 104950. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104950.
[34] Ge, Y., Gu, Y., & Deng, W. (2010). Evaluating China’s national post-disaster plans: The 2008 Wenchuan earthquake’s recovery and reconstruction planning. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 1(2), 17-27. doi:10.3974/j.issn.2095-0055.2010.02.003.
[35] Li, X., Yu, H., Xu, H., Ren, X., Song, W., & Zhang, J. (2023). A comparative study on pedestrian flow through bottlenecks between flood evacuation and land evacuation. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 95, 103822. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103822.
[36] Mochizuki, J., & Chang, S. E. (2017). Disasters as opportunity for change: Tsunami recovery and energy transition in Japan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 331–339. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.01.009.
[37] Mulligan, M., Steele, W., Rickards, L., & Fünfgeld, H. (2016). Keywords in planning: what do we mean by ‘community resilience’? International Planning Studies, 21(4), 348–361. doi:10.1080/13563475.2016.1155974.
[38] Dunz, N., Tanaka, H., Shiiba, N., Mochizuki, J., & Naqvi, S. A. A. (2021). Building back better in small Island developing states in the pacific: Initial insights from the bind model of disaster risk management policy options in Fiji. ADBI Working Paper, 1290.
[39] Emre, Ö., Duman, T. Y., Özalp, S., Şaroğlu, F., Olgun, Ş., Elmacı, H., & Çan, T. (2018). Active fault database of Turkey. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(8), 3229–3275. doi:10.1007/s10518-016-0041-2.
[40] Oyguc, R. (2016). Seismic performance of RC school buildings after 2011 Van earthquakes. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 14(3), 821–847. doi:10.1007/s10518-015-9857-4.
[41] Official Gazette No. 18749. (1985). Construction Zoning Law No. 3194. Republic of Türkiye, Ankara, Türkiye.
[42] Official Gazette No. 24461. (2001). Building Inspection Law No. 4708. Republic of Türkiye, Ankara, Türkiye.
[43] Official Gazette No. 25874. (2005). Municipal Law No. 5393. Republic of Türkiye, Ankara, Türkiye.
[44] Official Gazette No. 25531. (2004). Metropolitan Municipality Law No. 5216. Republic of Türkiye, Ankara, Türkiye.
[45] Official Gazette No. 28309. (2012). Law No. 6306 on the Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risk. Republic of Türkiye, Ankara, Türkiye.
[46] Official Gazette No. 27261. (2009). Law No. 5902 on the Organisation and Duties of the Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency. Republic of Türkiye, Ankara, Türkiye.
[47] Şevkin, E., & Gül, M. (2025). Local government reform in Turkey and its aftermath: the urban transformation of Istanbul between 1984 and 1989. Middle Eastern Studies, 61(4), 474-487. doi:10.1080/00263206.2024.2431008.
[48] McCormick, K., Anderberg, S., Coenen, L., & Neij, L. (2013). Advancing sustainable urban transformation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.003.
[49] Peter, B. (2008). Urban Transformation: Understanding City Design and Form. Island Press, Washington, United States.
[50] Grandin, J., Haarstad, H., Kjærås, K., & Bouzarovski, S. (2018). The politics of rapid urban transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 16–22. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.12.002.
[51] Montgomery, M. R. (2008). The urban transformation of the developing world. Science, 319(5864), 761–764. doi:10.1126/science.1153012.
[52] Elicin, Y. (2014). Neoliberal transformation of the Turkish city through the Urban Transformation Act. Habitat International, 41, 150–155. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.07.006.
[53] Gün, A., Pak, B., & Demir, Y. (2021). Responding to the urban transformation challenges in Turkey: a participatory design model for Istanbul. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 13(1), 32-55. doi:10.1080/19463138.2020.1740707.
[54] Tek, M. (2025). Urban Transformation in Antakya Post-Earthquake Challenges and Controversies: Urban Transformation in Antakya. In Preserving Cultural Heritage in Post-Disaster Urban Renewal. IGI Global Scientific Publishing, IGI Global Scientific Publishing, United States.
[55] Saraçoǧlu, C., & Demirtaş-Milz, N. (2014). Disasters as an ideological strategy for governing neoliberal urban transformation in Turkey: Insights from Izmir/Kadifekale. Disasters, 38(1), 178–201. doi:10.1111/disa.12038.
[56] Bozdağ, A., & İnam, Ş. (2021). Turkey Experience in Urban Transformation. Iconarp International J. Of Architecture and Planning, 9(2), 966–990. doi:10.15320/iconarp.2021.188.
[57] World Bank. (2015). Disaster Recovery Framework Guide. Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), UNDP, and European Union, World Bank, Washington, United States.
[58] UNDRR. (2019). Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2019. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), Geneva, Switzerland.
[59] UNDRR. (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), Geneva, Switzerland.
[60] Al-Mosawy, S. K., Al-Jaberi, A. A., Alrobaee, T. R., & Al-Khafaji, A. S. (2021). Urban Planning and Reconstruction of Cities Post-Wars by the Approach of Events and Response Images. Civil Engineering Journal, 7(11), 1836–1852. doi:10.28991/cej-2021-03091763.
[61] IFRC. (2023). Shelter Sector Türkiye — 2023 Earthquakes Response: Situation and Response Updates. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Shelter Cluster Türkiye, Ankara, Türkiye.
[62] Liu, C., Lay, T., Wang, R., Taymaz, T., Xie, Z., Xiong, X., Irmak, T. S., Kahraman, M., & Erman, C. (2023). Complex multi-fault rupture and triggering during the 2023 earthquake doublet in southeastern Türkiye. Nature Communications, 14(1), 5564. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-41404-5.
[63] Rodriguez-Perez, Q., & Zúñiga, F. R. (2025). Statistical and source characterization of the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Türkiye earthquake sequence. Acta Geophysica, 73(2), 1241-1260. doi:10.1007/s11600-024-01428-x.
[64] Gürboğa, Ş., Kayadibi, Ö., Akilli, H., Arikan, S., & Tan, S. (2024). Preliminary results of the great Kahramanmaraş 6 February 2023 earthquakes (MW 7.7 and 7.6) and 20 February 2023 Antakya earthquake (MW 6.4), Eastern Türkiye. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 33(1), 22-39. doi:10.55730/1300-0985.1896.
[65] TÜİK. (2023). Address-Based Population Registration System Results, 2022. Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK), Ankara, Türkiye.
[66] Zhang, S., Tian, J., Lu, X., Tian, Q., He, S., Lin, Y., Li, S., Zheng, W., Wen, T., Mu, X., Zhang, J., & Li, Y. (2024). Monitoring of chlorophyll content in local saltwort species Suaeda salsa under water and salt stress based on the PROSAIL-D model in coastal wetland. Remote Sensing of Environment, 306, 306. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2024.114117.
[67] Spearman, C. (1904). The Proof and Measurement of Association between Two Things. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 72. doi:10.2307/1412159.
[68] Kendall, M. G. (1938). A New Measure Of Rank Correlation. Biometrika, 30(1-2), 81–93. doi:10.1093/biomet/30.1-2.81.
[69] Theil, H. (1967) Economics and Information Theory. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
[70] Cowell, F. (2011). Measuring Inequality. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199594030.001.0001.
[71] Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, 7(1), 1176344552. doi:10.1214/aos/1176344552.
[72] Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994). An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, United States. doi:10.1201/9780429246593.
[73] Colin Cameron, A., & Miller, D. L. (2015). A practitioner’s guide to cluster- robust inference. Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 317–372. doi:10.3368/jhr.50.2.317.
[74] Imai, K., & Kim, I. S. (2021). On the Use of Two-Way Fixed Effects Regression Models for Causal Inference with Panel Data. Political Analysis, 29(3), 405–415. doi:10.1017/pan.2020.33.
[75] Solveig, T., & Bartolucci, A. (2023). INSARAG Lessons Learned Summary Report: 2023 Türkiye–Syria Earthquake Response. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), INSARAG Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland.
[76] OCHA. (2023). Türkiye–Syria Earthquakes: Situation Reports Nos. 1–12. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Geneva, Switzerland.
[77] Toraman, C., Kucukkaya, I. E., Ozcelik, O., & Sahin, U. (2023). Tweets under the rubble: Detection of messages calling for help in earthquake disaster. arXiv Preprint, arXiv:2302.13403. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2302.13403.
[78] Kovancı, E. (2023). Tracing the connections between human rights and post-earthquake. Kapanaltı Dergisi, (4), 77-94.
[79] Odacı, N., Karaman, S., & Kerse, K. (2025). Container City Experiences of Nurses Providing Voluntary Health Care Services Following the Earthquake: A Qualitative Approach. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 19, e225. doi:10.1017/dmp.2025.10143.
[80] Miao, Q., Davlasheridze, M., & Reilly, A. C. (2025). Assessing social equity of federal disaster aid distribution: A nationwide analysis. Risk Analysis, 45(11), 3375–3395. doi:10.1111/risa.17660.
[81] Becerra, O., Cavallo, E., & Noy, I. (2014). Foreign aid in the aftermath of large natural disasters. Review of Development Economics, 18(3), 445–460. doi:10.1111/rode.12095.
[82] Waters, L., Best, K., Miao, Q., Davlasheridze, M., & Reilly, A. C. (2024). Under-reported and under-served: Disparities in US disaster federal aid-to-damage ratios after hurricanes. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 106, 104430. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104430.
[83] Gezici, F., & Hewings, G. J. D. (2007). Spatial analysis of regional inequalities in Turkey. European Planning Studies, 15(3), 383–403. doi:10.1080/09654310601017091.
[84] Dhakal, S., & Zhang, L. (2023). A Social Welfare–Based Infrastructure Resilience Assessment Framework: Toward Equitable Resilience for Infrastructure Development. Natural Hazards Review, 24(1), 4022042. doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000597.
[85] Galasso, C., & Opabola, E. A. (2024). The 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake Sequence: finding a path to a more resilient, sustainable, and equitable society. Communications Engineering, 3(1), 24. doi:10.1038/s44172-024-00170-y.
[86] Platt, S., Gautam, D., & Rupakhety, R. (2020). Speed and quality of recovery after the Gorkha Earthquake 2015 Nepal. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 50, 101689. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101689.
- Authors retain all copyrights. It is noticeable that authors will not be forced to sign any copyright transfer agreements.
- This work (including HTML and PDF Files) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
