Temporary housing units are developed to meet the urgent shelter needs emerging after disasters, and container structures are widely used due to their features such as low cost, rapid production, and portability. However, in post-disaster housing processes, quantity and speed often take precedence; the indoor quality and comfort conditions of the provided temporary units are largely ignored. Yet, in the post-trauma recovery processes of disaster victims, the physical quality and indoor spatial characteristics of the space they live in play a determining role. The aim of this study is to evaluate the indoor comfort of temporary housing units in container cities established after the February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes based on user experiences, to reveal the main indoor spatial problem areas, and to develop improvement strategies in line with human-centered interior architecture approaches. The research was conducted in the Osmangazi Neighborhood container city established in the İslahiye district of Gaziantep province. As a method, field observations were conducted along with a survey study involving 90 users. Within the scope of the survey, thermal comfort, visual comfort and lighting, auditory (acoustic) comfort, indoor air quality, and ergonomics and spatial design parameters were evaluated. In the analysis of the obtained data, alongside descriptive statistics, One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the effect of demographic variables on comfort perception. The findings prove that noise, odor, inadequate air conditioning, and spatial limitations reduce the quality of life; ANOVA results prove that as household size increases (especially in families of 6-7 people), comfort satisfaction decreases, and education level is a determining factor in perception. The study contributes to the field by presenting a holistic interior architecture and improvement framework that prioritizes indoor quality and user comfort for post-disaster temporary housing units.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bilecen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: