Emergency response and recovery management in the 2023 Turkey earthquake: Lessons learned from AFAD's systematic approach and international EMT coordination

Safrizal Rahman; Panji Anugerah; Muhammad Iqbal EL Mubarak; Ali Timuçin Atayoğlu

doi:10.70347/svsthya.v2i3.93

Authors

Safrizal Rahman Division of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Syah Kuala - Dr. Zainoel Abidin Hospital
Panji Anugerah Division of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Syah Kuala - Dr. Zainoel Abidin Hospital https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2543-3676
Muhammad Iqbal EL Mubarak Aceh Emergency Medical Team
Ali Timuçin Atayoğlu Department of Family Medicine, Istanbul Medipol University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70347/svsthya.v2i3.93

Keywords:

Disaster response, disaster management, health services administration, Turkey, emergency preparedness, global health

Abstract

The February 6, 2023, earthquake in Turkey (7.8 Mw) created unprecedented challenges for emergency response systems. This study examines Turkey's Disaster and Emergency Management Authority's (AFAD) systematic approach and coordination with international emergency medical teams (EMTs), with a particular focus on the contributions of the Indonesian Aceh EMT. This intrinsic descriptive case study employed qualitative methodologies, including in-depth interviews with 20 participants involved in humanitarian response. Document analyses of AFAD, WHO, and UN OCHA reports complemented primary data collection. Purposive sampling ensured that the participants had relevant disaster response experience. The data were subjected to thematic analysis via NVivo software to identify recurring patterns. AFAD demonstrated preparedness through comprehensive disaster response frameworks, mobilizing over 300,000 volunteers despite initial delays in some cases. GIS mapping technology facilitated the real-time identification of affected regions, reducing response times by 25%. The Indonesian Aceh EMTs arrived on day nine and provided medical services to more than 5,000 individuals within their first operational week. More than 100,000 displaced individuals received immediate aid within 48 h of the earthquake through the AFAD's prepositioning of medical supplies. Response effectiveness is influenced by several factors, including technological integration, volunteer mobilization, and international coordination. The 2023 Turkey earthquake underscores the importance of systematic preparedness and international collaboration in disaster management in Turkey. Recommendations include improving logistical systems for rapid deployment, increasing the utilization of advanced technologies, enhancing multilingual training, and continuously evaluating disaster management frameworks.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Safrizal Rahman, Division of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Syah Kuala - Dr. Zainoel Abidin Hospital

Division of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Syah Kuala - Dr. Zainoel Abidin Hospital

Panji Anugerah, Division of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Syah Kuala - Dr. Zainoel Abidin Hospital

Division of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Syah Kuala - Dr. Zainoel Abidin Hospital

Muhammad Iqbal EL Mubarak, Aceh Emergency Medical Team

Aceh Emergency Medical Team

Ali Timuçin Atayoğlu, Department of Family Medicine, Istanbul Medipol University

Department of Family Medicine, Istanbul Medipol University

References

Utkucu M, Uzunca F, Durmuş H, Nalbant S, Sert S. The 2023 Pazarcik (Mw= 7.8) and Elbistan (Mw= 7.6), Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes in The Southeast Türkiye. Disaster Management Application and Research Center and Department of Geophysics, Sakarya University 2023:17.

Dolu A, İkizler H. The effects of major earthquakes on the labor market: evidence from Turkey. Int J Soc Econ 2023;50:662–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-08-2022-0568.

Aksoy CG, Chupilkin M, Koczan Z, Plekhanov A. Unearthing the impact of earthquakes: A review of economic and social consequences. J Policy Anal Manage 2024:22642. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22642.

Dunlop J. Land, Natural Resources and Sustainable Development in Aceh, Indonesia: Confronting Inequalities Through Post-tsunami and Post-conflict Recovery. In: 1, editor. The Asian Tsunami and Post-Disaster Aid, Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2018, p. 121–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0182-7_7.

Puri A, Elkharboutly M, Ali NA. Identifying major challenges in managing post-disaster reconstruction projects: A critical analysis. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2024;107:104491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104491.

Scendoni R, Cingolani M, Tambone V, De Micco F. Operational health pavilions in mass disasters: lessons learned from the 2023 earthquake in Turkey and Syria. Healthcare 2023;11:2052. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11142052.

Sofuoglu Z, Başer A, Sofuoglu T, Sönmez ÖF. First responders’ experiences with major earthquakes in Türkiye: a qualitative study of innovation needs and challenges. BMC Emerg Med 2025;25:60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-025-01217-9.

Koçak H, Kuday AD, Kınık K, Çalışkan C, Çelebi İ. Evaluating the Turkish red crescent’s (Türk Kızılay) disaster response: Insights from the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. BMC Public Health 2025;25:783. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21950-x.

Sukmawati AS, Hermawan IMA, Saputra EK, Adnyana IMDM, Aldyza N, Slamet NS, et al. Metodologi Penelitian. 1st ed. Bandung: CV. Media Sains Indonesia; 2024.

Hamilton ARL, Södergård B, Liverani M. The role of emergency medical teams in disaster response: a summary of the literature. Nat Hazards 2022;110:1417–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-05031-x.

Lee KJ, Malinen SK, Nilakant V. The dynamics of cross-sector collaboration in disasters. Disaster Prev Manag 2023;32:337–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-09-2022-0184.

Wamsler C, Johannessen Å. Meeting at the crossroads? Developing national strategies for disaster risk reduction and resilience: Relevance, scope for, and challenges to, integration. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2020;45:101452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101452.

Sari IP, Khairani L, Rahmanita Ginting. Enhancing disaster resilience: Evaluating the implementation of an early warning system through table top exercises. Perspektif 2023;12:1253–60. https://doi.org/10.31289/perspektif.v12i4.10341.

Hashemipour M, Stuban SMF, Dever JR. A community-based disaster coordination framework for effective disaster preparedness and response. Aust J Emerg Manage 2017;32:41–6. https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/ajem-apr-2017-a-community-based-disaster-coordination-framework-for-effective-disaster-preparedness-and-response/

Miao Q, Davlasheridze M, Reilly AC. Assessing social equity of federal disaster aid distribution: A nationwide analysis. Risk Analysis 2024:17660. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.17660.

Gaillard J-C, Clavé E, Kelman I. Wave of peace? Tsunami disaster diplomacy in Aceh, Indonesia. Geoforum 2008;39:511–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.10.010.

Arfiansyah, Jacob DM, Ronnie D. The Aceh Case: Peacebuilding and Post Tsunami Recovery 2022. ASEAN Institute for Peace and Reconciliation 2022.

Renner M. Post-tsunami Aceh: Successful peacemaking, uncertain peacebuilding. Livelihoods, natural resources, and post-conflict peacebuilding. 1st ed., United Kingdom: Routledge; 2015, p. 77–89. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849775816-7.

Domingue SJ, Emrich CT. Social vulnerability and procedural equity: Exploring the distribution of disaster aid across counties in the United States. Am Rev Public Adm 2019;49:897–913. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019856122.

Entress RM, Tyler J, Sadiq A. Inequity after death: Exploring the equitable utilization of FEMA’s COVID‐19 funeral assistance funds. Public Adm Rev 2023;83:1221–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13572.

Lee YH, Lee JS, Baek SC, Hong WH. Spatial equity with census population data vs. floating population data: The distribution of earthquake evacuation shelters in daegu, South Korea. Sustainability 2020;12:8046. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198046.

Appleby-Arnold S, Brockdorff N, Callus C. Developing a “culture of disaster preparedness”: The citizens’ view. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2021;56:102133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102133.

Ayuningtyas D, Windiarti S, Hadi MS, Fasrini UU, Barinda S. Disaster preparedness and mitigation in Indonesia: A narrative review. Iran J Public Health 2021;50:1536–1546. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v50i8.6799.

Lin B-C, Lee C-H. Enhancing community-based earthquake disaster management: resident preferences and adaptive capacity for resilience. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 2025;16:2450290. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2025.2450290.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. 1st ed. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR); 2019.

Rözer V, Surminski S, Laurien F, McQuistan C, Mechler R. Multiple resilience dividends at the community level: A comparative study of disaster risk reduction interventions in different countries. Clim Risk Manag 2023;40:100518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2023.100518.

R. Fisher J, Bela M, Keqmezi Rexhepi Z. International response to turkey 2023 earthquake: a policy analysis. Knowledge 2023;60:175–80. https://doi.org/10.35120/kij6001175f.

Yucesoy E, Balcik B, Coban E. The role of drones in disaster response: A literature review of operations research applications. Int T Ope Res 2025;32:545–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13484.