Türkiye has a long history of devastating earthquakes, and on February 6, 2023, the region experienced two major earthquakes with magnitudes of 7.7 and 7.6, striking Pazarcık and Elbistan, Kahramanmaraş, respectively, on the East Anatolian Fault Zone. These earthquakes resulted in significant loss of life and property, impacting multiple cities across 11 cities, and leaving a lasting impact on the country. The 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes rank among the deadliest and most damaging earthquakes in Türkiye, alongside the historical significance of the 1939 Erzincan Earthquake and the 1999 Marmara Earthquake. Despite reforms following the 1999 Marmara Earthquake in disaster policy and preparedness, the scale of damage from the February 6 earthquakes has been shocking, necessitating further insights and lessons for future earthquake management. This paper presents the outcomes of immediate response efforts organized after the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes to elucidate emergency response activities and their impacts on communities, considering the substantial size and severity of the damages. The study focuses on evaluating the emergency response provided within the first 24 h, 3 days, and 2 weeks after the earthquakes, aiming to promptly identify the nature and effectiveness of these responses, as well as the conditions that hindered their efficacy. By shedding light on the specific experiences and challenges faced during these crucial timeframes, the research aims to offer valuable insights and lessons learned. These findings contribute to improved preparedness strategies and more efficient emergency response measures needed in responding to future disaster scenarios. Ultimately, this study provides a useful resource for all stakeholders involved in emergency response and disaster management, offering valuable guidance to enhance resilience and preparedness in the face of seismic hazards.

On 6 February 2023, two earthquakes occurred approximately 9 h apart, with Mw 7.8 and 7.5, and epicenters located in Pazarcık and Elbistan districts of Kahramanmaras province, respectively. As part of a national project team which was funded by the Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency of Turkiye (AFAD) between June 2021 and June 2023, the authors of this article had proposed a framework to assess the seismic resilience of an urban region. The pilot area of this national project was a small‐scale industrial town named Turkoglu located to the south of Kahramanmaras, at the intersection of Amanos and Pazarcik segments of the East Anatolian Fault zone. The proposed framework encompasses the assessment of active faults in the region, construction of regional velocity models, ground motion simulations of potential earthquakes, structural vulnerability, and study of seismic resilience indicators. The Pazarcik earthquake occurred 4 months before the end of the project on the exact fault system, which was modeled in ground motion simulations within the project in 2022. The objective of this article is multifold: first, to present our findings before the earthquake (2021–2022) in the region, including regional velocity models, ground motion simulations, street survey‐based building classifications, and vulnerability classes; and second, to compare the after‐event modeling of damage distributions in comparison with the observed damages as well as resilience evaluations of the region from multiple perspectives. A third objective is to assess the seismic resilience framework used in the project, as there are multiple seismically active areas in Turkiye and the world where similar large events are anticipated. This study constitutes a significant case study in the Turkoglu region, which involves critical evaluations of seismic resilience from before and after event data.

The aim of this study is to investigate different institutional frameworks that deals with the management of UNESCO World Heritage Sites (hereafter WHS) under the threats of natural and technological hazards in other countries in comparison with Turkey. While doing this it is also aimed to figure out the factors that threat those sites. In this regard, first of all the international agenda regarding the conservation of cultural heritage in relation to risk management are discussed. Then, three different countries; namely Japan, U.K. and Turkey are examined with respect to how they consider ‘risk management’ for the conservation of cultural heritage sites. In addition to that, while explaining about the relationships between institutional approaches and factors that UNESCO WHS of those countries are exposed to ‘State of Conservation System’ (hereafter SOC) has been used. According to this investigation it is showed that in the UK case, among 31 UNESCO WHS, 2 of them are facing threats due to natural factors, 18 of them are exposed to threats because of human-induced factors and 14, out of 31 are subject to threats due to institutional factors. In Japan case, 3 of 21 World Heritage Sites are faced with threats because of natural factors, 3 of them are exposed to human-induced factors and 4 are subject to institutional factors. In the case of Turkey, it is observed that 3 of 17 WHS are faced with hazards because of natural factors, 4 are subject to human-induced threats and 7 of them are exposed to institutional factors. However, among instances in three countries, it should be noted that there are three different institutional systems for risk management and the conservation of cultural heritage. In this study those institutional systems have been investigated with their pros and cons as well as similarities and differences. In the scope of this article the investigation has been limited to only 3 case countries so that the result should be accepted as preliminary covering cases from Asia, Europe and Anatolia. Further studies could extend the number of cases investigated in order to have a spectrum of solutions in institutional framework for dealing with risks in WHS.