Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper investigates living heritage as a crucial entry point for community-led post-disaster reconstruction, drawing on the work of Architecture Sans Frontières UK (ASF-UK) in post-earthquake Antakya, Turkey. As state-led reconstruction often disrupts local ways of life and overlooks residents’ needs, living heritage is proposed as a framework to broaden the range of perspectives included beyond technical expertise, providing a platform for constructive engagement within communities and among stakeholders. The paper situates this approach within critical heritage and participatory recovery debates, contextualizing challenges within Antakya’s historical and sociopolitical dynamics. It outlines ASF-UK’s ongoing collaboration with local civil society, framing living heritage as shared knowledge – the tacit and explicit relations connecting people, places and practices. Technical assistance is reimagined as an interpretive role, documenting and visualizing embedded community knowledge to enhance advocacy efforts. We argue that a living heritage approach supports inclusive, locally grounded reconstruction pathways in contested post-disaster settings.

Keywords

Change by Design community-led planning living heritage participatory planning post-earthquake recovery reconstruction Turkey

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Al-Harithy

(editor) (2022), Urban Recovery: Intersecting Displacement with Post War Reconstruction, Routledge, Abingdon.

Alonso González

(2014), “From a given to a construct: heritage as a commons”, Cultural Studies Vol 28, No 3, pages 359–390.

Altunok

(2023), “‘Ma rehna, nehna hon!’”, 30 May, Argonotlar, available at https://argonotlar.com/ma-rehna-nehna-hon/.

Amaya-Akkermans

(2024), “Beyond rubble – cultural heritage and healing after disaster”, 23 August, The Markaz Review, available at https://themarkaz.org/beyond-rubble-cultural-heritage-and-healing-after-disaster/.

Archer

Boonyabancha

(2011), “Seeing a disaster as an opportunity – harnessing the energy of disaster survivors for change”, Environment & Urbanization Vol 23, No 2, pages 351–364.

Architecture Sans Frontières International, Architecture Sans Frontières UK, Asian Coalition for Housing Rights and Community Architects Network (2024), “Living heritage: pathways towards community-driven post-disaster reconstruction”, Networking event at the 12th World Urban Forum, Cairo, available at http://wuf.unhabitat.org/event/wuf12/living-heritage-pathways-towards-community-driven-post-disaster-reconstruction.

Architecture Sans Frontières UK and Hatay Deprem Dayanışması (2024), “Repairing Living Heritage in Çekmece: pathways towards community-led reconstruction”, ASF-UK, London, available at https://www.asf-uk.org/articles/yeni-rapor-cekmece-de-yasayan-mirasin-onarilmasi-new-report-repairing-living-heritage-in-cekmece.

Architecture Sans Frontières UK, Hatay Mimarlar Odası, Hatay Şehir Plancıları Odası, Hatay Deprem Dayanışması, Hatay Ekoloji Platformu, Herkes İçin Mimarlık, Karaçay Koordinasyonu and Nehna (2024), “Living heritage: a collective statement for community-led post-earthquake reconstruction”, ASF-UK, London, available at https://www.asf-uk.org/resources/antakya-s-living-heritage-collective-statement-en.

Asi Gazetesi (2024), “İşte deprem sonrasi Hatay’dan gidenlerin sayisi”, Hatay Asi Gazetesi – Hatay Son Dakika Haberleri, available at https://www.asigazetesi.com/iste-deprem-sonrasi-hataydan-gidenlerin-sayisi.

10.

Aydin

N Y

Celik

Gecen

Kalaycioglu

Duzgun

(2025), “Rebuilding Antakya: cultivating urban resilience through cultural identity and education for post-disaster reconstruction in Turkey”, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction Vol 117, 105196.

11.

Aykaç

Bayraktar

Bolat

(2024), Depremzedelerin Hakları ve İradesiyle Defne’nin Yeniden İnşasına Disiplinler-Arası Bir Akademik Katkı, BİRARADA, Istanbul.

12.

Batuman

(2024), “Hatay’da yeniden inşa: Yetki, erk, katılım”, 30 May, Gazete Duvar, available at https://www.gazeteduvar.com.tr/hatayda-yeniden-insa-yetki-erk-katilim-makale-1694944.

13.

BAYETAV (2024), “Deprem sonrasi hatay’i yeniden kurmak. Vatandaşların beklentileri ve katılımı”, BAYETAV, Izmir, available at https://tr.boell.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/hatayi-kurmak-deprem-bayetav-raporu-final.pdf.

14.

Benesch

Hammami

Holmberg

Uzer

(editors) (2015), Heritage as Common(s), Common(s) as Heritage, Makadam Publishers, Gothenburg.

15.

Bianet (2023a), “Hatay’da büyük yıkım var, devlet yok, ekmek yok, su yok, ilaç yok”, 7 February, Bianet, available at https://bianet.org/haber/hatay-da-buyuk-yikim-var-devlet-yok-ekmek-yok-su-yok-ilac-yok-273849.

16.

Bianet (2023b), “Tülay Hatimoğulları: ‘Hatay’da bilerek ve isteyerek ölüme terk edildik’”, 20 February, Bianet, available at https://bianet.org/haber/tulay-hatimogullari-hatay-da-bilerek-ve-isteyerek-olume-terk-edildik-274565.

17.

Bianet (2023c), “Antakya’da 57 bin binadan 52 bininin yıkılacağı, en az 30 bin kişinin öleceği biliniyordu”, 24 February, Bianet, available at https://bianet.org/haber/antakya-da-57-bin-binadan-52-bininin-yikilacagi-en-az-30-bin-kisinin-olecegi-biliniyordu-274727.

18.

Bianet (2023d), “Perihan Koca: Dikmece’deki Arap Aleviler zorla göç ettirilmek mi isteniyor?”, 16 June, Bianet, available at https://bianet.org/haber/perihan-koca-dikmece-deki-arap-aleviler-zorla-goc-ettirilmek-mi-isteniyor-280426.

19.

Byrne

(2014), Counterheritage: Critical perspectives on Heritage Conservation in Asia, Routledge, Abingdon.

20.

Campanella

T J

(2006), “Urban resilience and the recovery of New Orleans”, Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 72, No 2, pages 141–146.

21.

Can

(2020), Antakya at the Crossroads: Refugee Encounters at the Turkish–Syrian Border, Routledge, Abingdon.

22.

Can

(2023), “Kavga, sevda ve hafiza – Antakya”, 31 December, Nehna, available at https://www.nehna.org/post/kavga-sevda-ve-hafıza-antakya.

23.

Canedo

Andrade

L D S

(2024), “Towards an insurgent urbanism: collaborative counter-hegemonic practices of inhabiting and transforming the cities”, City Vol 28, No 1–2, pages 121–142.

24.

Centemeri

Topcu

Burgess

(2021), “Introduction: recovery resilience and repairing, from a non-reductionist approach to the complexity of post disaster situation”, in Centemeri

Topcu

Burgess

(editors), Rethinking Post Disaster Recovery: Socio Anthropological Perspectives on Repairing Environment, Routledge, Abingdon., pages 1–22.

25.

Cifuentes-Faura

(2024), “Corruption in Turkey and earthquakes: policies for tackling corruption in the construction sector”, Managerial and Decision Economics Vol 45, No 4, pages 1808–1816.

26.

Çılğın

(2024), “Yeni bir imar rejimine doğru”, 10 July, 1+1 Express, available at https://birartibir.org/yeni-bir-imar-rejimine-dogru/.

27.

Community Architects Network (2017), Community Voices: Preserving the Local Heritage, Asian Coalition for Housing Rights, Bangkok, 90 pages.

28.

Court

Wijesuriya

(2015), People-Centred Approaches to the Conservation of Cultural Heritage: Living Heritage, ICCROM, Rome.

29.

Dağtaş

(2018), “Nationalism, displacement, and ethnoreligious differentiation in Turkey’s southern borderlands”, Dialectical Anthropology Vol 42, No 4, pages 359–372.

30.

Dağtaș

(2020), “The Civilizations Choir of Antakya: the politics of religious tolerance and minority representation at the national margins of Turkey”, Cultural Anthropology Vol 35, No 1.

31.

Doğruel

(2005), ‘İnsaniyetleri benzer . . .’: Hatay’da çoketnili ortak yaşam kültürü (1. baskı), İletişim Yayınları, Istanbul.

32.

Duman

(2015), Vatan’ın Son Parçası. Hatay’daki Uluslaştırma Politikaları, İletişim Yayınları, Istanbul.

33.

Duman

(2023), “Antakya’dan vazgeçmemek: çok kültürlülüğün yeniden inşasi”, 31 October, Nehna, available at https://www.nehna.org/post/antakya-dan-vazgecmemek-cok-kulturlulugun-yeniden-insasi.

34.

Duman

Can

(2024), ‘Keşke kalsaydı’: Yerel tanıkların gözünden bir Antakya tarihi, İstos yayın, Istanbul.

35.

Duvar English (2023), “Residential area in Hatay declared reserve zone for urban renewal first time in Turkey, leaving 50,000 dispossessed”, 29 November, Duvar English, available at https://www.duvarenglish.com/residential-area-in-hatay-declared-reserve-zone-for-urban-renewal-first-time-in-turkey-leaving-50000-dispossessed-news-63406.

36.

Ehlen Dergisi (2024), “Deprem dosyasi: güncel durum – röportajlar”, 18 December, Ehlen, available at https://ehlendergisi.com/index.php/2024/12/18/deprem-dosyasi-guncel-durum-roportajlar/.

37.

Euronews (2023), “Three dead after 6.4 magnitude quake hits Turkish province of Hatay”, 20 February, Euronews, available at https://www.euronews.com/2023/02/20/64-magnitude-earthquake-hits-turkish-province-of-hatay.

38.

Evrensel (2024), “‘Hatay halkı artık konteynerlerde yaşamak istemiyor’”, 31 October, Evrensel, available at https://www.evrensel.net/haber/532632/hatay-halki-artik-konteynerlerde-yasamak-istemiyor.

39.

Frediani

A A

(2016), “Re-imagining participatory design: reflecting on the ASF-UK Change by Design methodology”, Design Issues Vol 32, No 3, pages 98–111.

40.

Genç

(2021), “Governing the contested city: geographies of displacement in Diyarbakır, Turkey”, Antipode Vol 53, No 6, pages 1682–1703.

41.

Gerçek Haber Ajansı (2025), “Türkiye’nin son ermeni köyü ve alevi köyleri yok olma tehdidi altinda”, 4 February, Gerçek Haber Ajansı, available at https://gercekhaberajansi.org/turkiyenin-son-ermeni-koyu-ve-alevi-koyleri-yok-olma-tehdidi-altinda/.

42.

Gümüş

(2017), Toplumsal mekan üretiminde müşterekleştirme pratikleri: Düzce Umut Evleri [Commoning practices of production of social space: Düzce Hope Houses], Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul.

43.

Gürsel

(2024), “The duality of damage (hasar) in a post-earthquake Antioch”, 16 October, UCL Urban Laboratory, available at https://uclurbanlab.medium.com/the-duality-of-damage-hasar-in-a-post-earthquake-antioch-4468bffbf71a.

44.

Hall

(1999), “Whose heritage? Un-settling ‘the heritage’, re-imagining the post-nation”, Third Text Vol 13, No 49, pages 3–13.

45.

Harvey

(2002), “The art of rent: globalization, monopoly and the commodification of culture”, Socialist Register Vol 38, pages 93–110.

46.

Hatay Depremzede Derneği (2025), “Hatay Deprem 2. Yıl raporu”, Hatay Depremzede Derneği.

47.

Herzfeld

(2010), “Engagement, gentrification, and the neoliberal hijacking of history”, Current Anthropology Vol 51, No S2, pages S259–S267.

48.

Johnson

(2011), “Kernels of change: civil society challenges to state-led strategies for recovery and risk reduction in Turkey”, Environment & Urbanization Vol 23, No 2, pages 415–430.

49.

Kocabas

Gibson

M S

(2011), “Planned gentrification in Istanbul: the Sulukule renewal area 2005–2010”, International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning Vol 6, No 4, pages 420–446.

50.

Korur Fincancı

(2023), “Ma rıhna nıhna hon”, 21 August, Evrensel Gazetesi, available at https://www.evrensel.net/yazi/93484/ma-rihna-nihna-hon.

51.

Luansang

Boonmahathanakorn

Domingo-Price

M L

(2012), “The role of community architects in upgrading; reflecting on the experience in Asia”, Environment & Urbanization Vol 24, No 2, pages 497–512.

52.

Maskrey

(1989), Disaster Mitigation: A Community-based Approach, Oxfam, Oxford.

53.

Mavroulis

Mavrouli

Vassilakis

Argyropoulos

Carydis

Lekkas

(2023), “Debris management in Turkey provinces affected by the 6 February 2023 earthquakes: challenges during recovery and potential health and environmental risks”, Applied Sciences Vol 13, No 15, 8823.

54.

McFarlane

(2006), “Knowledge, learning and development: a post-rationalist approach”, Progress in Development Studies Vol 6, No 4, pages 287–305.

55.

Mertcan

(2013), Türk Modernleşmesinde Arap Aleviler: Tarih, Kimlik, Siyaset, Karahan Kitabevi, Adana.

56.

Miraftab

(2009), “Insurgent planning: situating radical planning in the global South”, Planning Theory Vol 8, No 1, pages 32–50.

57.

Navaro-Yashin

(2013), “Shadows of the 1980 coup and the Syrian war: resisting in Antakya”, 31 October, Society for Cultural Anthropology, available at https://culanth.org/fieldsights/shadows-of-the-1980-coup-and-the-syrian-war-resisting-in-antakya.

58.

Novoa

(2022), “Insurgent heritage: mobilizing memory, place-based care and cultural citizenships”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Vol 46, No 6, pages 1016–1034.

59.

Öktem

(2020), “Erasing palimpsest city: boom, bust, and urbicide in Turkey”, in Yacobi

Nasasra

(editors), Routledge Handbook on Middle East Cities, Routledge, Abingdon.

60.

Osterlund

P B

(2024), “Turkey’s reserve areas”, 12 March, The Dial, available at https://www.thedial.world/articles/news/issue-14/turkey-earthquake-proof-housing.

61.

Roy

(2011), “Slumdog cities: rethinking subaltern urbanism”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Vol 35, pages 223–238.

62.

Rudaw (2025), “Bakırhan: Deprem bölgesinde Kürtlerin ve Alevilerin olduğu yerlere ayrımcılık yapılıyor”, 6 February, Rudaw, available at https://www.rudaw.net/turkish/middleeast/turkey/0602202511.

63.

Sengezer

Koç

(2005), “A critical analysis of earthquakes and urban planning in Turkey: a critical analysis of earthquakes and urban planning in Turkey”, Disasters Vol 29, No 2, pages 171–194.

64.

Shafique

(2025), “Dirty research: a call towards decolonial urban knowledge production”, City, online first, https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2024.2447687.

65.

Siddiqi

Canuday

J J P

(2018), “Stories from the frontlines: decolonising social contracts for disasters”, Disasters Vol 42, No S2, pages S215–S238.

66.

Smith

(2006), Uses of Heritage, Routledge, Abingdon.

67.

SoL Haber (2024), “Hatay’da rezerv alan tartışması büyüyor: ‘Binlerce imza verdik muhatap bulamıyoruz’”, 5 August, SoL Haber, available at https://haber.sol.org.tr/haber/hatayda-rezerv-alan-tartismasi-buyuyor-binlerce-imza-verdik-muhatap-bulamiyoruz-394495.

68.

Soylu

(2023), “What went wrong with Turkey’s earthquake response?”, 6 March, Middle East Eye, available at https://www.middleeasteye.net/big-story/turkey-earthquake-response-what-went-wrong.

69.

Soylu

(2024), “Turkey’s slow earthquake reconstruction marred with infighting and confusion”, 5 February, Middle East Eye, available at https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turkey-earthquake-reconstruction-slow-marred-infighting-confusion.

70.

Stanley-Price

(2007), “The thread of continuity: cultural heritage in post-war recovery”, in Price

(editor), Cultural Heritage in Post-war Recovery, ICCROM Forum, Rome, pages 1–16.

71.

Süveydan

(2024), “Depremin 15. Ayında Antakya’da ahval ve şerait”, 15 May, Arkitera, available at https://www.arkitera.com/gorus/depremin-15-ayinda-antakyada-ahval-ve-serait/.

72.

T24 (2024), “Tülay hatimoğullari hatay’da: AKP, demografik yapıyı değiştirmek istiyor; depremin ilk gününde biz enkaz altındayken biraz daha ölelim, azalalım diye gelmediler”, 6 February, T24, available at https://t24.com.tr/haber/tulay-hatimogullari-hatay-da-partisinin-grup-toplantisinda-aciklamalarda-bulunuyor,1150540.

73.

TAÇDAM (Tarihsel Çevre Değerlerini Araştırma Merkezi) (2023), “Antakya’nın çok katmanli kültürel mirasinin deprem sonrasi belgelenmesi, hasar tespiti ve değerlendirmesi”, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.

74.

Tezer

(2024), “Antakya’da deprem: Önce, bugün, sonra (I. Bölüm)”, 4 February, Nehna, available at https://www.nehna.org/post/antakya-da-deprem-once-bugun-sonra.

75.

Tezer

S T

(2025), “Antakya’da kirilganliğin inşasi: 6 Şubat ve 20 Şubat depremleri”, Reflektif Journal of Social Studies Vol 6, No 1, pages 119–147.

76.

Tironi

Campos-Knothe

Acuña

Isola

Bonelli

Gonzalez Galvez

Kelly

, et al. (2022), “Interruptions: imagining an analytical otherwise for disaster studies in Latin America”, Disaster Prevention and Management Vol 31, No 3, pages 243–259.

77.

TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası (2023), “Antakya, bi̇r grup ‘star’ mi̇mara parsel parsel bölüştürülerek, plansiz, katilimsiz, projeci̇ bi̇r yaklaşimla yeni̇den inşa edi̇lemez!”, available at http://www.spo.org.tr/detay.php?sube=0&tip=3&kod=12591.

78.

TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkent Şubesi (2024), “Hatay’da bilimsel şehircilik ve planlama ilkelerine aykırı ihaleler iptal edilmelidir”, 13 May, available at https://www.mimarist.org/hatayda-bilimsel-sehircilik-ve-planlama-ilkelerine-aykiri-ihaleler-iptal-edilmelidir/.

79.

Tuğal

(2023), “Politicized megaprojects and public sector interventions: mass consent under neoliberal statism”, Critical Sociology Vol 49, No 3, pages 457–473.

80.

Turner

J F

Fichter

(editors) (1972), Freedom to Build: Dweller Control of the Housing Process, Macmillan, Basingstoke.

81.

UNDRO (1982), Shelter after Disaster: Guidelines for Assistance, United Nations Disaster Relief Coordinator, New York, 82 pages.

82.

Uysal

Ü E

(2012), “An urban social movement challenging urban regeneration: the case of Sulukule, Istanbul”, Cities Vol 29, No 1, pages 12–22.

83.

Winter

(2012), “Clarifying the critical in critical heritage studies”, International Journal of Heritage Studies Vol 19, No 6, pages 532–545.

84.

Yeşilbağ

(2022), “Statecraft on cement: the politics of land-based accumulation in Erdoğan’s Turkey”, Urban Studies Vol 59, No 13, pages 2679–2694.

85.

Ziedan

(2022), “Souls of homes: heritage as a manifestation of community relationships through space and time”, in al-Ḥāriṯī

(editor), Urban Recovery: Intersecting Displacement with Post War Reconstruction, Routledge, Abingdon.

Living heritage as shared knowledge: advancing community-led reconstruction in post-earthquake Antakya

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References