Authors : Naci Büyükkaracığan

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 1 - January

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/5568nxap

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/msh5y44h

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jan1381

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : This study investigates a conceptual Regional Real Estate Governance Strategy Model for high-earthquake-risk urban areas, focusing specifically on Türkiye. While current approaches to managing seismically risky real estate prioritize structural safety, legal regulations, and subsequent technical urban transformation, economic, behavioral, and governance aspects affecting market outcomes are systematically overlooked. This study utilizes international academic literature, policy documents, and secondary institutional data to present an integrated governance model that systematically harmonizes seismic risk, market dynamics, and multi-stakeholder coordination. The research is qualitative and literature-based. This synthesis of relevant international literature, global best practices, and national policy context identifies critical mechanisms for the impact of seismic risk on real estate valuation, investment decisions, and market transparency. Based on this integration, a Hybrid Integrated Model (MIM) is proposed that clearly outlines the roles and interactions of public institutions, market players, and civil society in the management of seismically risky real estate markets. The proposed model, which emphasizes risk-sensitive pricing, open information sharing, and participatory governance as key determinants of sustainable real estate management in at-risk areas, allows for easy implementation. Addressing seismic risk as a technical, economic, and governance challenge, this study offers a practical and flexible framework for policymakers and implementers to improve market stability, market resilience, and long-term value preservation in developing countries at risk of earthquakes.

Keywords : Earthquake Risk, Real Estate Governance, Conceptual Model, Multi-Stakeholder Management, Türkiye.

References :

1. AFAD. (2018). Türkiye deprem tehlike haritası. T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı. https://www.afad.gov.tr
2. AFAD. (2022). Türkiye deprem veri ve risk raporu. Ankara: Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı.https://www.afad.gov.tr
3. AFAD. (2023). Türkiye afet risk azaltma planı (TARAP). T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı. https://www.afad.gov.tr
4. Ahiadu, A. A., Abidoye, R. B., & Yiu, T. W. (2024). Decision-making amid economic uncertainty: exploring the key considerations of commercial property investors. Buildings, 14(10), 3315.
5. Alas, B. (2019). The impact of earthquake risk upon housing prices in the riverbeds: Istanbul sample. Disaster Science and Engineering, 5(1), 11 31.
6. Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299
7. Apergis, N. (2020). The impact of natural disasters on the housing market: A review of the literature. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(10), 241.
8. Ay, D., & Demires Ozkul, B. (2021). The strange case of earthquake risk mitigation in Istanbul. City, 25(1-2), 67-87.
9. Boelhouwer, P., & van der Heijden, H. (2018). The effect of earthquakes on the housing market and the quality of life in the province of Groningen, the Netherlands. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 33(2), 429–438.
10. Bradley, S., Mahmoud, I. H., & Arlati, A. (2022). Integrated collaborative governance approaches towards urban transformation: experiences from the CLEVER cities project. Sustainability, 14(23), 15566.
11. Büyükkaracığan, N. (2023). New Trends in Real Estate Development Projects, İKSAD Publising House, Ankara.
12. Crofton, K. (2024). Spatial Characteristics: Improving Model Accuracy and Providing Regional Research Insights. Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University, 21-24.
13. Çelik, B., & Çiçek, B. (2023). The impact of various geological factors on the real estate valuation using AHP analysis: Case studies from Turkey. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 23(7), 2439–2452
14. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. (2021). Kentsel dönüşüm ve deprem riskli alanlar raporu. Ankara: ÇŞB. https://www.csb.gov.tr
15. Gorfe, H. N. (2025). Acil durum ve afet sonrası konutlarda modüler konut tasarımının potansiyeliPublished Master’s Thesis, Uludağ University, Bursa.
16. GYODER (2025). Türkiye gayrimenkul sektörü raporu. Gayrimenkul ve Gayrimenkul Yatırım Ortaklığı Derneği. www.gyoder.org.tr/yayınlar
17. Ikefuji, M., Laeven, R. J., Magnus, J. R., & Yue, Y. (2022). Earthquake risk embedded in property prices: Evidence from five Japanese cities. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 117(537), 82-93.
18. Jayashree, P. (2022). Practice of sustainability leadership: A multi‑stakeholder framework for emerging markets. Sustainability, 14(10), 6346.
19. Paudel, J. (2025). Economic impact of large earthquakes: lessons from residential property values. Oxford Economic Papers, 77(2), 564-583.
20. Kartal, G. (2024). Did the february 6-7 Türkiye earthquake trigger a housing market bubble? Empirical insights from right-tailed unit-root tests. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, 74(2), 461-489.
21. Keskin, B., Dunning, R., & Watkins, C. (2017). Modelling the impact of earthquake activity on real estate values: A multi-level approach. Journal of European Real Estate Research, 10(1), 73–90.
22. Kousky, C. (2014). Informing climate adaptation: A review of the economic costs of natural disasters. Energy Economics, 46, 576–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.09.029
23. KPMG (2024). Real Estate Sector Report: 2024 Outlook. Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler Turkey. https://kpmg.com/tr/tr/home/insights/2024/07/insaat-ve-garimenkul-sektorel-bakis-2024.html
24. Kunreuther, H., Meyer, R., & Michel-Kerjan, E. (2019). Strategies for better protection against catastrophic risks. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 58(2–3), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-019-09305-9
25. Kunreuther, H., & Schupp, J. (2021). Evaluating the role of insurance in managing risk of future pandemics (No. w28968). National Bureau of Economic Research, 1-25.
26. Nguyen, A. T. N., & Nguyen, H. (2024). Currencies in Turbulence: Exploring the Impact of Natural Disasters on Exchange Rates.” file:///D:/Downloads/wpiea2024186-print-pdf%20(2).pdf
27. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
28. OECD. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2015). Governance of critical risks. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239542-en
29. OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2023). The territorial impact of the earthquakes in Türkiye (OECD Policy Note). OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/06/the-territorial-impact-of-the-earthquakes-in-turkiye_3e1731ee/bb5c07e6-en.pdf
30. Ojeda, W. (2020). Inattention to Earthquake Risk in Home Values. Working paper. William Newman Department of Real Estate, Baruch College, The City University of New York, Newman Hall, New York, NY 10010.
31. Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.641
32. Özüdoğru, B. A. (2023). The impact of and policies for the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake (Policy Note). The Economic Policy Research Foundation of Türkiye (TEPAV), https://tepav.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/upload/files/1682309440-3.The_Impact_of_and_Policies_for_the_2023_Kahramanmaras_Earthquake.pdf
33. Shi, S., & Naylor, M. (2023). Perceived earthquake risk in housing purchases. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 38(3), 1761-1787.
34. Shilling, J. D., Benjamin, J. D., & Sirmans, C. F. (2019). Real estate (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
35. Siangulube, F. S. (2024). The role of multistakeholder platforms in environmental governance: A district level study. Environmental Management, 74, 13-30.
36. TÜİK. (2022). Bina ve konut nitelikleri istatistikleri. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. https://data.tuik.gov.tr
37. TÜİK. (2023). Yapı izin istatistikleri. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. https://data.tuik.gov.tr
38. World Bank. (2021). Building urban resilience: Principles, tools, and practice. World Bank Publications. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1735-5