Local Authority Experiences in Disaster Response: A Case Study of Mukhtars in Hatay,Türkiye after the February 6,2023 Earthquakes

Abstract

This study examines the experiences of mukhtars in Hatay, Türkiye, following the February 6 earthquakes. Framed by the “institutional voids” concept, this qualitative study finds that mukhtars became critical first responders but were systemically overburdened by the collapse of formal governance. Validated through analytical triangulation, the findings detail severe challenges in communication, resource management, and damage assessments. The study concludes that enhancing community resilience requires moving beyond theoretical recognition to the formal integration of hyper-local actors, such as mukhtars, into centralized disaster governance, supported by clear legal and institutional frameworks.

Keywords

Disaster management mukhtars February 6 earthquakes local authorities local governance community resilience

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AFAD (2023) Press Bulletin about the Earthquake in Kahramanmaras. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of Interior Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency. Available at: https://en.afad.gov.tr/announcements (accessed 12 March 2025).

Aka

Buh

Fantong

, et al. (2017) Disaster prevention, disaster preparedness and local community resilience within the context of disaster risk management in Cameroon. Natural Hazards 86: 57–88.

Aksoy

Çevik

(2023) Political and economic implications of the Turkish earthquakes: Centralisation of power has eroded state capacity. Report no. 19/2023. SWP Comment. Available at: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/271547

Albris

Lauta

Raju

(2020) Disaster knowledge gaps: exploring the interface between science and policy for disaster risk reduction in Europe. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 11(1): 1–12.

Alexander

(2014) Social media in disaster risk reduction and crisis management. Science and Engineering Ethics 20(3): 717–733.

Altunsu

Güneş

Öztürk

, et al. (2024) Investigating the structural damage in Hatay province after Kahramanmaraş-Türkiye earthquake sequences. Engineering Failure Analysis 157: 107857.

Apaydin

(2024) Earthquake response of the transportation infrastructure in the region affected by the February 6 Türkiye earthquakes’’ part I-roads, railroads and ports. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. Epub ahead of print 26 June. DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2024.2370856.

Apte

(2010) Humanitarian logistics: a new field of research and practice. Foundations and Trends® in Technology, Information and Operations Management 3(1): 1–100.

Azad

MAK

Zaman

Uddin

, et al. (2019) Community-based disaster management and its salient features: a policy approach to people-centred risk reduction in Bangladesh. Asia-Pacific Journal of Rural Development 29(2): 135–160.

10.

Balta

Mengü

Yaman

ÖM

(2024) 2023 Kahramanmaraş merkezli depremlerde sosyal hizmetlerin sivil örgütlenmesi ve işleyişi. Akademik Yaklaşımlar Dergisi 15(1-Deprem Özel Sayısı): 261–291.

11.

Belli

Aydın

(2024) Afet iletişimi ve sosyal medya bağlamında yerel yönetimlerin rolü: 06 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremi örneği. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi 11(2): 497–515.

12.

Bilkent University Human Rights Center (2023) 10 İlde Deprem Nedeniyle Gündeme Gelen Hak İhlallerinin Giderilmesi İçin Anayasa ve İdare Hukuku Kapsamında Sorumluluk. Ankara, Turkey: İ.D. Bilkent Üniversitesi. Available at: https://ihm.bilkent.edu.tr/deprem-bilgi-notu.pdf (accessed 23 June 2024).

13.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

14.

Çağdaş Hukukçular Derneği (ÇHD) (2023) Hatay Antakya-defne-samandağ Deprem Gözlem Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: ÇHD. Available at: https://cagdashukukcular.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/HATAY-CHD-Deprem-Gozlem-Raporu.pdf (accessed 21 June 2024)

15.

Çakı

Özbayram

(2020) Muhtarlar ve topluluk-temelli afet yönetişimi. Adam Academy Journal of Social Sciences 10(2): 447–485.

16.

CDAC Network (2023) An analysis of the communication and engagement ecosystem in earthquake-affected Türkiye [Report]. Available at: https://www.cdacnetwork.org/resources/an-analysis-of-the-communication-and-engagement-ecosystem-in-earthquake-affected-turkiye

17.

Cheek

(2020) The paradox of community involvement: rebuilding Minamisanriku. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 29(6): 893–907.

18.

Creswell

Poth

(2018) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19.

Demir

(2025) Post-earthquake structural damage assessment, lessons learned, and addressing objections following the 2023 Kahramanmaras, Turkey earthquakes. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 23: 1107–1127.

20.

Denney

Asfaw

Ivanova

, et al. (2018) Power in participatory processes: reflections from multi-stakeholder workshops in the Horn of Africa. Sustainability Science 13(3): 879–893.

21.

Dursun

Bozcuk

(2024) Depreme Dirençli Kentlerin Oluşturulmasında Belediyelerin Rolü: Erzin Örneği. Kent Akademisi 17(2): 369–392.

22.

Duruel

(2023) Afet yönetiminde yerel yönetimlerin etkinliği: 6 şubat depremi Hatay örneği. International Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research (JSHSR) 10(99): 2404–2418.

23.

Dzigbede

Gehl

Willoughby

(2020) Disaster resiliency of US local governments: A review of the literature and a research agenda. Public Administration Review 80(5): 885–896.

24.

Ersoy

Koçak

(2015) Disasters and earthquake preparedness of children and schools in Istanbul, Turkey. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk 7(4): 1307–1336.

25.

Eser

Gok

(2024) Post-earthquake developments in Turkish construction law. Construction Law International 18(4): 15.

26.

Flick

(2018) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 6th ed. London: Sage.

27.

Fotiou

Argyriou

Alatza

, et al. (2023) Impact assessment of the catastrophic earthquakes of 6 February 2023 in Turkey and Syria via the exploitation of satellite datasets. In: Hadjimitsis

Themistocleous

Michaelides

, et al. (eds) Ninth International Conference on Remote Sensing and Geoinformation of the Environment (RSCy2023). Bellingham, WA: SPIE, pp.475–487.

28.

Gerdan

Özdemir

(2017) Afet zararlarının azaltmasında toplum tabanlı gözlemsel mahalle tehlike analizi eğitimi: Kocaeli örneği. Resilience 1(1): 11–19.

29.

Güneser

Saygili

(2024) Education-Supported Crisis Communication: the Kahramanmaras Earthquake, 2023. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET 23(1): 67–75.

30.

Hallegatte

Rentschler

Walsh

(2018) Building Back Better: Achieving Resilience through Stronger, Faster, and More Inclusive Post-Disaster Reconstruction. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications. Available at: https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/default/files/publication/Building%20Back%20Better.pdf (accessed 12 April 2025).

31.

Imperiale

Vanclay

(2020) Barriers to enhancing disaster risk reduction and community resilience: evidence from the L’aquila disaster. Politics and Governance 8(4): 232–243.

32.

Jenkins

(2025) Türkiye: Corruption Risks and Anti-Corruption Measures for Post-Earthquake Recovery [Report]. Bergen: U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre; Berlin: Transparency International.

33.

Jones

Collins

Aryal

(2013) Local-level governance of risk and resilience in Nepal. Disasters 37(3): 442–467.

34.

Khanna

Palepu

(2010) Winning in Emerging Markets: A Road Map for Strategy and Execution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

35.

Kozyel

Köymen

(2025) 6 Şubat 2023 Depreminde Hatay İline Müdahale Eden İtfaiye Personelinin Karşılaştığı Zorluklar Üzerine Nitel Bir İnceleme. Afet ve Risk Dergisi 8(1): 340–355.

36.

Kurban

Çığman

(2025) Koordinatör Kurum-İcracı Kurum Tartışmaları Çerçevesinde Afet Yönetimi ve AFAD. Afet ve Risk Dergisi 8(1): 275–288.

37.

Kusumasari

Alam

(2012) Bridging the gaps: the role of local government capability and the management of a natural disaster in Bantul, Indonesia. Natural Hazards 60(2): 761–779.

38.

Lam

(2024) Asymmetrical power relationships in disaster reduction remain the key barrier to sustainable recovery: neoliberalism and Nepal’s post-earthquake recovery experiences. Sustainable Development 32(2): 1483–1495.

39.

Larkin

Shaw

Flowers

(2019) Multiperspectival designs and processes in interpretative phenomenological analysis research. Qualitative Research in Psychology 16(2): 182–198.

40.

Leck

Simon

(2018) Local authority responses to climate change in South Africa: the challenges of transboundary governance. Sustainability 10(7): 2542.

41.

Guo

, et al. (2021) Community resilience and resident’s disaster preparedness: evidence from China’s earthquake-stricken areas. Natural Hazards 108(1): 567–591.

42.

Mair

Marti

(2009) Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: a case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing 24(5): 419–435.

43.

Mudefi

(2023) Disaster management “deeds” in the context of April 2022 KwaZulu-Natal floods: a scoping review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 98: 104122.

44.

Nakamura

Kanemasu

(2020) Traditional knowledge, social capital, and community response to a disaster: resilience of remote communities in Fiji after a severe climatic event. Regional Environmental Change 20(1): 1–14.

45.

Ndah

Odihi

(2017) A systematic study of disaster risk in Brunei Darussalam and options for vulnerability-based disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 8(2): 208–223.

46.

Norris

Stevens

Pfefferbaum

, et al. (2008) Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology 41(1–2): 127–150.

47.

Ogra

Donovan

Adamson

, et al. (2021) Exploring the gap between policy and action in disaster risk reduction: a case study from India. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 63: 102428.

48.

Orhan

(2015) The consequences of security cognition in post-disaster urban planning practices in the case of Turkey. Natural Hazards 76(1): 685–703.

49.

Özdemir

(2023) Afet yönetiminde belediyelerin rolü. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 12(2): 828–839.

50.

Pathak

Ahmad

(2018) Role of government in flood disaster recovery for SMEs in Pathumthani province, Thailand. Natural Hazards 93(2): 957–966.

51.

Presidency of Strategy and Budget (2023) 2023 Kahramanmaraş ve Hatay Depremleri Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: Presidency of Strategy and Budget. Available at: https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-Kahramanmaras-ve-Hatay-Depremleri-Raporu.pdf (accessed 17 May 2025).

52.

Sofuoglu

Başer

Sofuoglu

, et al. (2025) First responders’ experiences with major earthquakes in Türkiye: a qualitative study of innovation needs and challenges. BMC Emergency Medicine 25(1): 60.

53.

Tayfur

Bayramoğlu

Şimşek

, et al. (2024) Medical response to the February 6, 2023, earthquakes in Hatay: challenges faced in the deadliest disaster in the history of Türkiye. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 18: e45.

54.

TMMOB İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası (İMO) (2023a) 6: Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş Depremi Hasar Tespit Çalışmaları Değerlendirme Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: TMMOB. Available at: https://www.imo.org.tr/Eklenti/8216,hasar-tespit-calismalari-degerlendirme-raporurpdf.pdf?0 (accessed 19 June 2024).

55.

TMMOB İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası (İMO) (2023b) 6: Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş Depremleri Sonucu Oluşan Yapısal Hasarlara İlişkin Gözlem ve Değerlendirme Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: TMMOB. Available at: https://www.tmmob.org.tr/sites/default/files/imodeprem-rapor.pdf (accessed 23 June 2024).

56.

Turan

(2018) Türkiye’nin yeni yönetim düzeni: Cumhurbaşkanlığı hükümet sistemi. Social Sciences Research Journal 7(3): 42–91.

57.

Turan

Oral

(2023) Implications in the light of the experiences and perspectives of Mukhtars as local community leaders in the scope of disaster management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 85: 103508.

58.

Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi (TBMM) (2023) Kahramanmaraş Merkezli Depremlerin Sonuçlarının Tüm Yönleriyle Araştırılması. . . Meclis Araştırması Komisyonu Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: TBMM. Available at: https://downloads.ctfassets.net/dq9b2d58kdrp/1lsNnDpzg2mqZAmTMAnnUH/2ce5ba429dda2c2f2f3bcccea2e83292/Deprem_Ara_t_rma_Komisyon_Raporu_2023.pdf (accessed 23 June 2024)

59.

Türkiye İnsan Hakları Vakfı (TİHV) (2023) Antep, Maraş, Hatay ve Malatya Merkezli Depremler Sonrasında 6-27 Şubat 2023 Tarihleri Arasında Yaşanan İnsan Hakları İhlalleri Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: TİHV. Available at: http://www.madde14.org/images/1/10/TIHVDepremInHakIhlMart2023tur.pdf (accessed 23 June 2024).

60.

Yin

(2018) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

61.

Zhang

Liu

Chen

, et al. (2021) Community disaster resilience in the COVID-19 outbreak: insights from Shanghai’s experience in China. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 13: 3259–3270.