GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF MODERN AND POSTMODERN ACCOMMODATION SUPPLY: A CASE STUDY OF İZMİR (TURKEY)

Öz

In this study, the geographical distribution of modern accommodation facilities and postmodern sharing residences in Izmir are compared. First, the geographical distribution of traditional facilities was observed by using the data of Izmir Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism. Afterwards, the locations of local residents who included their living spaces in CouchSurfing and Airbnb were determined. In this respect, 392 CouchSurfers were selected by random sampling method and they completed an online survey. The spatial data of Airbnb residences, on the other hand, were obtained from Airdna. According to the findings, modern supply is concentrated in districts such as Çeşme (96-35%), Selçuk (19-7%) and Menderes (15-5%) which are characterized by sea-sun-sand and material, whereas postmodern supply is concentrated in Karşıyaka (181-12%), Bornova (161-11%), and Buca (61-4%) which are outside the traditional accommodation corridor and focus on non-material culture. On the other hand, the supply of Airbnb provides accommodation in the districts such as Çeşme (339-32%), Urla (46-4%) and Karaburun (44-4%) where traditional facilities are generally concentrated. The geographical distribution of modern (69-25%) and postmodern (235-16%) supply in central Izmir shows parallelism only in Konak. When this similarity on the district is examined on a quarter levels however, it turns out that the facilities are concentrated in central and coastal quarters and adjacent quarters whereas the residences are more dispersed and are located in the outskirts. In conclusion, the opening of residences in tourism by individuals, adopting the sharing culture, has brought about more balanced distribution of accommodation within the destination. It has provided a range of locations and prices as well as creating an alternative accommodation possibility and this situation allows post-tourists to go outside of tourist bubble and transition to areas in the back regions which are the actual residential areas.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Postmodern tourism,network society,sharing economy,CouchSurfing,Airbnb,Izmir

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF MODERN AND POSTMODERN ACCOMMODATION SUPPLY: A CASE STUDY OF İZMİR (TURKEY)

Öz

Bu çalışmada, modern turizmin geleneksel konaklama tesisleri ile postmodern turizmin paylaşım konutlarının coğrafi dağılışı ve bu dağılışın nedenleri İzmir ölçeğinde ele alınmıştır. İlk olarak, İzmir İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü verilerinden yararlanılarak, geleneksel konaklama tesislerinin coğrafi dağılışı yapılmıştır. Daha sonra, yaşam alanlarını CouchSurfing ve Airbnb platformlarına dâhil eden yerel sakinlerin kümelendiği lokasyonlar tespit edilmiştir. Bu bağlamda, CouchSurfing platformu üzerinden rastgele örneklem yöntemiyle belirlenen 392 kişiye çevrimiçi anket uygulanmış, Airbnb konutlarının mekânsal verileri ise Airdna aracılığıyla elde edilmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında, modern arz unsurlarının; deniz-kum-güneş ve maddi kültür öğeleriyle karakterize olan Çeşme (96-%35), Selçuk (19-%7), Menderes (15-%5) gibi ilçelerde, postmodern arz unsurlarının ise Karşıyaka (181-%12), Bornova (161-%11), Buca (61-%4) gibi geleneksel konaklama koridorunun dışarısında kalan ve maddi olmayan kültür öğeleri merkezli destinasyonlarda yoğunlaştığı saptanmıştır. Ayrıca, Airbnb arz unsurları ağırlıklı olarak geleneksel konaklama tesislerinin kümelendiği; Çeşme (339-%32), Urla (46-%4), Karaburun (44-%4) gibi diğer ilçelerde alternatif konaklama imkânı sağlamaktadır. Modern (69-%25) ile postmodern (235-%16) arz unsurlarının kent merkezindeki coğrafi dağılışı, sadece Konak’ta paralellik göstermektedir. İlçe bazındaki bu benzerlik, mahalle ölçeğinde irdelendiğinde ise geleneksel tesislerin merkez kıyı ve bunların çeperinde yoğunlaştığı, paylaşım konutlarının ise çok daha saçaklı bir özellik sergileyerek arka mahallerde kümelendiği bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak, paylaşım kültürünü benimsemiş ağ toplumunca kişisel konutların arz unsuru olarak turizme açılması, konaklama olanaklarının daha dengeli dağılışını beraberinde getirmiş, lokasyon ve fiyat çeşitliliği sağlamış ve alternatif konaklama imkânı oluşturmuştur. Bu durum ise post-turistlerin turist balonu dışarısına çıkmasını ve kurgulanmış ön bölgelerden, yerel sakinlerin yaşam alanları olan arka bölgelere geçmesini sağlamıştır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Postmodern turizm,ağ toplumu,paylaşım ekonomisi,CouchSurfing,CouchSurfing,Airbnb

Kaynakça

1. Airbnb About Us, https://press.airbnb.com/about-us/, Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
2. Altan, H. Z. 2015. Sosyal medyanın kullanımlar ve doyumlar haritası: Youtube, Facebook ve Twitter”. In, Büyükaslan, A., Kırık, A. M. (eds.), Sosyal Medya Araştırmaları II: Sosyalleşen Olgular, Çizgi Kitapevi, Konya.
3. Bialski, P. 2011. Technologies of hospitality: How planned encounters develop between strangers. Hospitality & Society 1(3), 245–260.
4. Botsman, R., Rogers, R. 2010. What’s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption. HarperBusiness, New York.
5. Cohen, E. 1972. Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39, 164-182.
6. Cohen, E. 1979. A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13, 179-201.
7. CouchSurfing About Us. http://www.couchsurfing.com/about/about-us/, Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
8. Erdal, C. 2013. Sosyal medya ve paylaşım kültürü. In, Bilgili, C., Şener, G. (eds.), Sosyal Medya ve Ağ Toplumu II: Kültür, Kimlik, Siyaset, Grafik Tasarım Yayıncılık, İstanbul.

9. Franz, M. 2013. CouchSurfing Experiences, Reputation, References and Decision-Making in an Online Hospitality Network. Master Thesis, University of Jyväskylä. 96 pp.
10. Gotham, K. F. 2005. Tourism gentrification: The case of new Orleans’ vieux carre (French Quarter). Urban Studies, 42(7), 1099–1121.
11. Gurran, N., Phibbs, P. 2017. When Tourists Move In: How Should Urban Planners Respond to Airbnb?. Journal of the American Planning Association, 83(1), 80-92.
12. Guttentag, D. 2015. Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(12), 1192-1217.
13. Herrera, L. M. G., Smith, N., Vera, M. A. M. 2007. Gentrification, displacement, and tourism in Santa Cruz de Tenerife. Urban Geography, 28(3), 276–298.
14. Izmir Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism. http://www.izmirkulturturizm.gov.tr/TR,77217/tesis-verileri.html, Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
15. Kara, T. 2013. Sosyal medya endüstrisi: İnsan, toplum, ekonomi. Beta Basım, İstanbul.
16. Lampien, A. 2016. Hosting Together via Couchsurfing: Privacy Management in the Context of Network Hospitality. International Journal of Communication, 10, 1581-1600.
17. Larsen, J. 2008. De‐exoticizing tourist travel: Everyday life and sociality on the move. Leisure Studies, 27, 21-34.
18. Lash, S., Urry, J. 1994. Economies of signs and space. Sage Publications, London.
19. Lauterbach, D., Truong, H., Shah, T., Adamic, L. 2009. Surfing a web of trust: Reputation and reciprocity on CouchSurfing.com. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering 2002, 346-353, New York.
20. Liang, Z. X., Bao, J. G. 2015. Tourism gentrification in Shenzhen, China: causes and socio-spatial consequences. Tourism Geographies, 17(3), 461-481.
21. MacCannell, D. 1973. Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 589-603.
22. Molz, J. G. 2013. Social Networking Technologies and the Moral Economy of Alternative Tourism: The Case of Couchsurfing.org. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 210-230.
23. Mowforth, M., Munt, I. 1998. Tourism and sustainability: New tourism in the third world. Routledge Publications, London.
24. Nicholas, A. J. 2014. The social logics of Sharing. The Communication Review, 16, 113-131.
25. Nofre, J., Giordano, E., Eldridge, A., Martins, J. C., Sequera, J. 2018. Tourism, nightlife and planning: challenges and opportunities for community liveability in La Barceloneta. Tourism Geographies, 20(3), 377-396.
26. Novy, J. 2018. ‘Destination’ Berlin revisited. From (new) tourism towards a pentagon of mobility and place consumption. Tourism Geographies, 20(3), 418-442.Richards, G. 2002. Tourism attraction systems exploring cultural behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 1048-1064.
27. Rosen, D., Lafontaine, P. R., Hendrickson, B. 2011. CouchSurfing: Belonging and trust in a globally cooperative online social network. New Media & Society, 13(6), 981-998.
28. Schor, F. B., Fitzmaurice, C. J. 2015. Collaborating and connecting: The emergence of the sharing economy. In, Reisch, L. A., Thogersen, J. (eds), Handbook on Research on Sustainable Consumption, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton.
29. Shaw, G., Williams, A. M. 2004. Tourism and tourism spaces. Sage Publications, London.
30. Smith, M, K., Egedy, T., Csizmady, A., Jancsik, A., Olt, G., Michalkó, G. 2018. Non-planning and tourism consumption in Budapest's inner city. Tourism Geographies, 20(3), 524-548.
31. Smith, V. L. (eds) 1977. Hosts and guests: The anthropology of tourism. University of Pennsylvania Press, Pennsylvania.
32. Tan, J. E. 2010. The leap of faith from online to offline: An exploratory study of Couchsurfing.org. In Acquisti, A., Smith, S. W., Sadeghi, A.-R. (eds), Trust and trustworthy computing, Springer, Heidelberg.
33. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism. http://yigm.kulturturizm.gov.tr/TR-9860/turizm-belgeli-tesisler.html, Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
34. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism. http://yigm.kulturturizm.gov.tr/TR-201140/yillik-bultenler.html, Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
35. Tussyadiah, L., Pesonen, J. 2015. Impacts of peer-to-peer accommodation use on travel patterns. Journal of Travel Research, 55, 1022-1040.
36. Uriely, N. 2005. The tourist experience: Conceptual developments. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 199-216.
37. Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., Byers, J. W. 2017. The Rise of the Sharing Economy: Estimating the Impact of Airbnb on the Hotel Industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(5), 687-705.