Purpose This study aims to reveal how variations in site selection, beneficiary management, housing delivery, and social integration influenced the recovery performance of two post-disaster housing recovery models implemented after the 2020 İzmir Seferihisar Earthquake. By identifying their strengths and weaknesses, this study seeks to guide the development of more resilient, participatory and sustainable post-disaster housing strategies for future recovery efforts. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopts a comparative case study approach to evaluate two post-disaster housing recovery models, In-Situ Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation by Relocation, implemented after the 2020 Izmir Seferihisar Earthquake. A mixed-methods strategy was used, combining quantitative analysis of official data with qualitative document analysis and literature review. The models were assessed across key criteria, including speed, social integration, economic sustainability, environmental impact and participatory governance. Findings This study finds that while the Rehabilitation by Relocation model achieved faster housing delivery through large-scale new settlements, it weakened social ties and increased environmental pressures. In contrast, the In-Situ Rehabilitation model better preserved social networks and urban continuity but faced challenges related to slower implementation and limited housing production. Both models exhibited trade-offs between speed, social cohesion, economic sustainability and beneficiary satisfaction. The findings suggest that combining the strengths of both approaches could enhance the effectiveness, equity and resilience of future post-disaster housing recovery efforts. Originality/value The findings provide original insights for policymakers and practitioners seeking to design more balanced and context-sensitive post-disaster recovery strategies, bridging the gap between legal structures and social needs in disaster-affected urban environments.
Yakın et al. (2026) studied this question.