Afet Sonrası Göçün Mekânsal Büyüme, Yeşil Dönüşüm ve Tarım Politikalarına Etkileri: Ankara’da Yeni Göçmenlerle Yapılan Anket Bulgularının Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Türkiye’de, 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremlerinden sonra yaşanan zorunlu göçler, önemli büyüklükte demografik ve mekânsal dönüşümleri beraberinde getirmiştir. Yüz binlerce insanın farklı kentlere göç etmek zorunda kaldığı süreçte Ankara söz konusu nüfus hareketliliğinin en yoğun gözlemlendiği merkezlerden biri olmuştur. Başkent kimliği ile nüfus dinamikleri ve kentsel gelişim baskısı birleştiğinde Ankara, afet sonrası göçün mekânsal, ekonomik ve çevresel yansımalarının bütüncül olarak incelenebileceği özgün bir örnek oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada, afet sonrası Ankara’ya göç edenlerle yürütülen anket çalışması aracılığıyla göçün mekânsal büyüme, konut piyasası, yeşil dönüşüm ve tarımsal alan kullanımı üzerindeki etkileri analiz edilmektedir. Uygulanan anketler ile, göçmenlerin barınma tercihleri, kent içi yerleşim eğilimleri, yeşil alan ve tarımsal etki alanında yönelik algıların ve kentsel hizmet beklentilerinin ölçülmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bulgular ile, göçün yalnızca geçici barınma talebini değil; aynı zamanda mekânsal kimliği, kentsel bütünleşmeyi ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma gündemlerini de dönüştüren bir süreç olduğu ortaya konmaktadır. Çalışma sonuçları, özellikle Altındağ, Mamak ve Yenimahalle gibi göç alan bölgelerde konut talebinin yoğunlaştığını, kira fiyatlarının arttığını ve mekânsal baskıların hizmet sunumu yetersizlikleriyle birleşerek toplumsal uyumu zorlaştırdığını göstermektedir. Kent çeperinde ise tarımsal alanlara olan baskının arttığı, göçmenlerin düşük maliyetli barınma stratejilerinin kırsal–kentsel geçiş bölgelerinde yeni yapılaşma biçimleri ürettiği gözlemlenmektedir. Bu durum, Ankara’nın tarımsal etki alanıyla ilişkisini yeniden tanımlamakta, yeşil kalkınma ve yeşil dönüşüm politikalarının göç bağlamında ele alınmasını zorunlu kılmaktadır. Göçün mekânsal büyüme üzerindeki etkilerinin anlaşılabilmesi için, yerel yönetimlerin planlama kapasitesinin güçlendirilmesi, göçmen odaklı konut politikalarının geliştirilmesi ve tarımsal etki alanının korunmasına yönelik bütünleşik stratejilerin uygulanması gerekmektedir. Çalışma, göçmenlerle gerçekleştirilen anketten elde edilen bulgularıyla göç–mekân–sürdürülebilirlik üçgenine ilişkin özgün katkılar sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Afet
• Kent Ekonomisi
• Kentsel Hizmetler
• Mekansal Büyüme
• Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma
• Zorunlu Göç

The Effects of Post-Disaster Migration on Spatial Growth, Green Transition, and Agricultural Policies: An Evaluation of Survey Findings from New Migrants in Ankara

Abstract

Following the devastating 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes, Turkey has undergone substantial demographic and spatial transformations due to large-scale involuntary migration. Ankara emerged as one of the primary destinations for displaced populations, providing a distinctive case to analyze the spatial, economic, and environmental implications of post-disaster migration. Combining the city’s capital identity with its dynamic population growth and urban expansion pressures, this study offers a holistic examination of migration-driven spatial change. A structured survey was conducted with migrants who relocated to Ankara after the disaster to explore the effects of migration on spatial growth, the housing market, green transformation, and agricultural land use. The survey assessed migrants’ housing preferences, urban settlement patterns, perceptions of green areas and agricultural hinterlands, and expectations of urban services. The findings reveal that migration transforms not only temporary housing demand but also spatial identity, urban cohesion, and the sustainable development agenda. In districts such as Altındağ, Mamak, and Yenimahalle, the influx of migrants has intensified housing demand, increased rental prices, and created service provision challenges that undermine social cohesion. Moreover, pressures on peri-urban agricultural lands have led to emerging low-cost housing formations, redefining Ankara’s spatial boundaries and its relationship with the agricultural hinterland. These outcomes underscore the necessity of strengthening local governments’ planning capacity, developing migrant-oriented housing strategies, and implementing integrated approaches to preserve agricultural zones. Overall, the study contributes to understanding the complex interactions between migration, spatial dynamics, and sustainability in the post-disaster context.

Keywords

• Disaster
• Involuntary Migration
• Spatial Growth
• Sustainable Development
• Urban Economics
• Urban Services

Kaynakça

1. Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364.
2. Angel, S., Parent, J., Civco, D. L., ve Blei, A. M. (2016). Atlas of Urban Expansion: The 2016 Edition. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
3. Babbie, E. (2021). The Practice of Social Research (15th ed.). Cengage Learning.
4. Baca, M. ve Görçün, F. Ö. (2010). Post-Disaster Reconstruction in Rural and Urban Areas of Turkey. İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi Dergisi 1(2), 1-14.
5. Bakewell, O. (2008). Research beyond the categories: The importance of policy irrelevant research into forced migration. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(4), 432–453.
6. Berke, P. R., ve Campanella, T. J. (2006). Planning for postdisaster resiliency. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604(1), 192–207.
7. Berkes, F., ve Ross, H. (2013). Community resilience: Toward an integrated approach. Society ve Natural Resources, 26(1), 5–20.
8. Black, R., Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W., Dercon, S., Geddes, A., ve Thomas, D. (2011). The effect of environmental change on human migration. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 3–11.

9. Bonanno, G. A. (2021). The resilience paradox. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 12(1), 189 4734. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113.
10. Burby, R. J., Deyle, R. E., Godschalk, D. R., ve Olshansky, R. B. (2000). Creating hazard resilient communities through land-use planning. Natural Hazards Review, 1(2), 99–106.
11. Cahya, D. L., Martini, E. ve Kasikoen, K. M. (2018). Urbanization and Land Use Changes in Peri-Urban Area using Spatial Analysis Methods (Case Study: Ciawi Urban Areas, Bogor Regency). IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science. 123 (1), 012035.
12. Cin, M. M. ve Egercioğlu, Y. (2016). A Critical Analysis of Urban Regeneration Projects in Turkey: Displacement of Romani Settlement Case. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 216 (6), 269-278
13. Collado-Ruano, J. ve Segovia, J. (2022). Ecological Economics Foundations to Improve Environmental Education Practices: Designing Regenerative Cultures. World Futures The Journal of General Evolution. 78(90),1-28
14. Creswell, J. W., ve Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). Sage.
15. Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., ve Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 598–606.
16. Cutter, S.L. (2021). Urban Risks and Resilience. Urban Informatics.
17. Davoudi, S., Brooks, E., ve Mehmood, A. (2012). Evolutionary resilience and strategies for climate adaptation. Planning Practice and Research, 28(3), 307–322.
18. Eraydin, A. ve Tasan-Kok, T. (2013). Resilience Thinking in Urban Planning. The GeoJournal Library. 106, 1-17.
19. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). (2022). The State of Food and Agriculture: Leveraging automation in agriculture for transformation. Rome: FAO.
20. Field, A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). Sage.
21. Folke, C. (2016). Resilience (republished). Ecology and Society, 21(4), 44.
22. Gibbs, D., ve O’Neill, K. (2017). The green economy, sustainability transitions and policy conflict. Geographical Journal, 183(2), 119–128.
23. Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211–221.
24. Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. Jossey-Bass.
25. Haaland, C., ve Van Den Bosch, C. K. (2015). Challenges and strategies for urban green space planning in cities undergoing densification. Urban Forestry ve Urban Greening, 14(4), 760–771.
26. Harvey, D. (1973). Social Justice and the City. London: Edward Arnold.
27. Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. Verso.
28. IOM (International Organization for Migration). (2022). World Migration Report 2022. Geneva: IOM Publications.
29. Meadowcroft, J. (2011). Engaging with the politics of sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 70–75.
30. Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., ve Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 147, 38–49.
31. OECD. (2023). Green Growth and Sustainable Cities: Policy Integration for Urban Transitions. Paris: OECD Publishing.
32. Oliver-Smith, A. ve Hoffman, S. (2013). Disasters, displacement and resettlement. In A. Oliver-Smith, ve S. M. Hoffman (Eds.), The Angry Earth (2nd ed., pp. 75–97). Routledge.
33. Paul, B. K. ve Juran, L. (2025). The Routledge handbook of disasters and development. Routledge.
34. Pelling, M., ve Garschagen, M. (2019). Put equity first in climate adaptation. Nature, 573(7772), 334–336.
35. Satterthwaite, D., Archer, D., Colenbrander, S., Dodman, D., Hardoy, J., ve Patel, S. (2020). Building resilience to climate change in informal settlements. One Earth, 2(2), 143–156.
36. Sietsma, A., Ford, J.D., Callaghan ve Minx, J.C. (2021). Progress in climate change adaptation research. Environmental Research Letters. 16 (5).
37. Smith, A., ve Stirling, A. (2018). Innovation, sustainability and democracy: An analysis of socio-technical transitions. In J. Markard, R. Raven, ve B. Truffer (Eds.), Sustainability transitions: Research and practice (pp. 41–60). Routledge.
38. Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking Spatial Justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
39. Tashakkori, A., ve Teddlie, C. (2010). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage.
40. Turok, I., ve McGranahan, G. (2013). Urbanization and economic growth: The arguments and evidence for Africa and Asia. Environment and Urbanization, 25(2), 465–482.
41. Türker, H.B., Kalkan, M. ve Ortaç, G. (2024). Reimagining resilience: The transformative role of urban green areas in Türkiye's disaster preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 106(5),104397
42. Ubaura, M. 2018. Changes in Land Use After the Great East Japan Earthquake and Related Issues of Urban Form. Japan Earthquake and Tsunami: Reconstruction and Restoration.
43. UN-Habitat. (2020). World Cities Report 2020: The Value of Sustainable Urbanization. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. Vale, L. J. (2014). The politics of resilient cities: Whose resilience and whose city? Building Research ve Information, 42(2), 191–201.
44. Vale, L. J., ve Campanella, T. J. (Eds.). (2005). The resilient city: How modern cities recover from disaster. Oxford University Press.
45. Valache-Dărîngă, A. A. (2025). A bibliometric perspective of the green transition within the framework of sustainable development. Energies, 6(4), 140.
46. Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., ve Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5.
47. Wisner, B., Gaillard, J. C., ve Kelman, I. (2012). Framing disaster: Theories and stories seeking to understand hazards, vulnerability and risk. In B. Wisner, J. C. Gaillard, ve I. Kelman (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of hazards and disaster risk reduction (pp. 18–33). Routledge.
48. World Health Organization (WHO). (2021). Urban green space interventions and health: A review of impacts and effectiveness. Geneva: WHO.
49. Zasada, I., Fertner, C., Piorr, A., ve Nielsen, T. S. (2013). Peri-urbanisation and multifunctional adaptation of agriculture around Copenhagen. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 11(1), 59–72.