Current studies in disaster sociology, which were initiated and developed mostly in the USA upon the request of the army, are far from meeting the needs today. Today, more than ever, new theoretical and methodological approaches that are not human-centered are needed. The research, a part of which is presented here, aims to render invisible the damages and losses suffered by those who are marginalized by the powerful, in disasters in general and earthquakes in particular. The main question of this research is how to address the damages suffered by soil plants and animals, including immigrants in Turkey, due to the disaster on 6February 2023.(Based on this, the main question of the study is how to address the damages of the natural environment, including plants, animals and soils, as well as Syrian immigrants in Turkey, who were affected by the earthquakes centered in Kahramanmaraş on 6February 2023, which we experienced most recently, will be addressed with an antipositivist approach.) For this purpose, unlike classical sociological approaches, based on relational sociology, how immigrants, plants, animals and soil are affected together during the uncertainty and complexity in daily life has been analyzed based on available written and visual documents. The findings were discussed with a holistic view, based on the ‘One World’ terminology suggested by relational sociologist Bruno Latour. It has been revealed that due to the earthquake turning into a major disaster, the resident population has become openly or secretly immigrants, and they have been marginalized like other creatures, especially international immigrants, most of whom are Syrians, have been blamed, excluded and rendered invisible. While the research results reveal the inadequacy of classical essentialist sociological approaches based on the basic duality of nature and society, they also show that ‘differences’ and ‘uncertainties’ come to the fore in daily life instead of linear determinations. In addition, while the importance and contributions of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary studies with concepts such as ‘liminality’ and ‘turning point’ are exhibited, on the other hand, some suggestions are made based on Bruno Latour’s ‘One World’ approach.

Regional cooperation stands as a key strategy to address intense economic competition and formidable local governance challenges. Successful regional collaborations are typically founded on the basis of institutional similarity, which also serves as the starting point for a multitude of related theoretical studies. Consequently, the regional cooperation within the context of institutional conflicts has been overlooked. This paper aims to explore the process of regional cooperation against the backdrop of conflicts, using the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) as a case study and analyzing it from the perspective of the sociology of knowledge. The article posits that conflicts can stimulate interactions among various actors, foster the generation of local knowledge, and propel specific cooperative practices. Moreover, local and central governments, grounded in local knowledge and universal managerial insights, continuously authenticate and propagate local innovations, establishing guiding policies and, consequently, producing rational knowledge. The accumulation of such knowledge has not only strengthened civilian cooperation but also facilitated broader collaborative efforts. The study reveals that despite the GBA’s remarkable achievements in cooperation, challenges persist: on the one hand, there are issues with the government’s process of rational knowledge production and the quality of knowledge itself; on the other hand, excessive governmental dominance may suppress the production and application of local knowledge. Therefore, refining the knowledge production mechanism is especially critical. The findings of this paper uncover the mechanisms of regional cooperation amidst institutional conflicts and deepen our understanding of regional collaboration and cross-border governance.

In the history of public health, space has evolved through several stages driven by shifts in concepts of disease control. The history of public health is summarized by George Rosen in six phases: Origins (before 500 CE), Middle Ages (500–1500), Mercantilism and Absolutism (1500–1750), Enlightenment and Revolution (1750–1830), Industrialism and the Sanitary Movement (1830–1875), and the Bacteriological Era (1875–present). By integrating architectural sociology—a temporal lens examining the interplay between architecture, individuals, and society—this study investigates how architects historically responded to public health challenges, offering critical insights for contemporary healthy habitat design. Architecture not only addresses survival needs but also materializes societal consciousness. The progression of health-related cognition (e.g., germ theory), behavioural norms (e.g., hygiene practices), infrastructure systems (e.g., sanitation networks), and scientific advancements collectively redefined spatial paradigms. Architects constructed temples, thermae, lazarettos, Beitian Yangbingfang (charitable infirmaries), anatomical theaters, quarantine hospitals, tenements, mass housing, and biosafety laboratories. These cases exemplify the co-evolution of “Concept” (disease control ideologies), “Technology” (construction methods), and “Space” (built environments). By synthesizing centuries of public health spatial practices, this research deciphers the dynamic interplay among “Concept, Technology, and Space”. Leveraging historical patterns, we propose a predictive framework to refine future spatial strategies in anticipation of emerging health crises.