Canakkale Gold Mining in the Context of Bronfenbrenner's Socio-Ecological System: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

Gold has retained its strategic significance throughout human history due to its economic, cultural, and financial functions. Today, gold is not only a store of value or a financial investment instrument but also a strategic resource for producing countries, contributing to trade balance, public revenues, employment, and regional development. However, gold mining activities, while generating economic outputs, also give rise to complex and multi-layered externalities. This study aims to analyze gold mining activities in Çanakkale Province and its surroundings through the lens of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) socio-ecological systems theory, based on the experiences of three key stakeholder groups: local residents, public officials, and private sector representatives. A qualitative research design was adopted, and data were collected between September and November 2024. Using purposive sampling, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 participants. Interviews lasted between 45 and 70 minutes, were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymized, and analyzed. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University (Approval No: 2024/176). The data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s six-phase thematic analysis approach: (1) familiarization with the data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) producing the report. Thematic analysis revealed five main themes: mutual dependency, feedback mechanisms, reaction or resistance, scale of impacts, and adaptive governance. Collectively, these themes indicate that the studied socio-ecological system is characterized by limited responsiveness to feedback, suppressed or redirected social resistance, local concentration of impacts, centralized decision-making, and superficial adaptive capacity. Findings suggest that the externalities of gold mining are not solely environmental but also deeply embedded in social relations, cultural norms, and governance practices. The study proposes that such externalities should not be framed merely as “environmental damage,” but as “multi-scalar disruptions to vital systems,” requiring a more nuanced and integrative perspective.

Keywords

• Socio-Ecological System
• Gold Mining
• Externalities
• Thematic Analysis
• Stakeholder Perceptions

Bronfenbrenner’ın Sosyo-Ekolojik Sistemi Bağlamında Çanakkale Altın Madenciliği: Nitel Bir Çalışma

Abstract

Altın, hem ekonomik değeri hem de kültürel ve finansal işlevleri bakımından insanlık tarihi boyunca stratejik önemini koruyan bir madendir. Günümüzde altın yalnızca bir değer saklama aracı değil, aynı zamanda üretici ülkeler açısından dış ticaret dengesi, kamu gelirlerinin artırılması, istihdamın desteklenmesi ve bölgesel kalkınmanın teşviki gibi çok boyutlu etkiler üreten stratejik bir kaynak niteliği taşımaktadır. Bu bağlamda, altın madenciliği faaliyetleri ekonomik çıktılar üretmekle birlikte, çok katmanlı dışsallıkların ortaya çıkmasına da neden olmaktadır. Araştırmanın amacı, Çanakkale ili ve çevresinde yürütülen altın madenciliği faaliyetlerini Bronfenbrenner’ın (1979) sosyo-ekolojik sistem yaklaşımı çerçevesinde, yerel halk, kamu yöneticileri ve özel sektör temsilcilerinin deneyimleri doğrultusunda çok düzeyli olarak analiz etmektir. Nitel araştırma desenine sahip bu çalışmada, veri toplama süreci Eylül–Kasım 2024 tarihleri arasında gerçekleştirilmiş, ölçüt-temelli örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilen 24 katılımcı ile yarı yapılandırılmış bire bir görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Görüşmeler ortalama 45–70 dakika sürmüş, ses kaydıyla belgelenmiş, yazılıya çevrilmiş ve anonimleştirilmiştir. Çalışma, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Etik Kurulu’ndan alınan onayla yürütülmüştür. Veri analizi, Braun ve Clarke’ın tematik analiz yaklaşımı doğrultusunda altı aşamada gerçekleştirilmiştir: (1) veriye aşinalık, (2) kodların oluşturulması, (3) temaların geliştirilmesi, (4) temaların gözden geçirilmesi, (5) temaların adlandırılması, (6) bulguların raporlanması. Analiz sonucunda beş ana tema belirlenmiştir: karşılıklı bağımlılık, geri bildirim mekanizmaları, tepki/direnç, etkilerin ölçeği ve uyarlanabilir yönetim. Bu temalar bütünsel olarak değerlendirildiğinde, incelenen sosyo-ekolojik sistemde geri bildirimlerin yeterince algılanamadığı, toplumsal direncin bastırıldığı ya da yönlendirildiği, etkilerin yerel düzeyde yoğunlaştığı, karar alma süreçlerinin merkezî otoriteye bağlı olduğu ve öğrenme/uyarlanabilirlik kapasitelerinin sınırlı kaldığı görülmektedir. Elde edilen bulgular, dışsallıkların yalnızca çevresel değil, aynı zamanda sosyal ilişkiler, kültürel normlar ve yönetsel pratiklerle iç içe geçmiş çok boyutlu yapılar olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu bağlamda, dışsallıkların yalnızca “çevresel zarar” olarak değil, “yaşamsal sistemler üzerindeki çok düzeyli tahribatlar” şeklinde değerlendirilmesi önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• Sosyo-Ekolojik Sistem
• Altın Madenciliği
• Dışsallıklar
• Tematik Analiz
• Paydaş Algıları

References

1. Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364. doi:10.1191/030913200701540465
2. Aksel, Ş., Gün, Z., Irmak, T. Y., & Çengelci, B. (2007). Migration and psychological status of adolescents in Turkey.
3. Adolescence, 42(167), 589–602. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18047241/
4. Armitage, D., Marschke, M., & Plummer, R. (2008). Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 86–98. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002
5. Berkes, F., Kislalioglu, M., Folke, C., & Gadgil, M. (1998). Exploring the basic ecological unit: Ecosystem-like concepts in traditional societies. Ecosystems, 1(5), 409–415. doi:10.1007/s100219900034
6. Berkes, F. (2000). Linking social and ecological systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
8. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

9. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature–nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568
10. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 993–1028). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
11. El Zaatari, W., & Maalouf, I. (2022). How the Bronfenbrenner bio-ecological system theory explains the development of students’ sense of belonging to school. SAGE Open, 12(4), 1–18. doi:10.1177/21582440221134089
12. Darling, N. (2007). Ecological systems theory: The person in the center of the circles. Research in Human Development, 4(3–4), 203–217. doi:10.1080/15427600701663023
13. Darling, N. (2015). Bronfenbrenner and the ecology of human development. In T. Maynard & N. Thomas (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of philosophies and theories of early childhood education and care (pp. 234–245). London: Routledge.
14. De Garine-Wichatitsky, M., Binot, A., Ward, J., Caron, A., Perrotton, A., Ross, H., … Echaubard, P. (2021). “Health in” and “Health of” social-ecological systems: A practical framework for the management of healthy and resilient agricultural and natural ecosystems. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 616328. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.616328
15. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. doi:10.1177/160940690600500107
16. Fidan, A. (2016). Dünyada ve Türkiye’de madencilik faaliyetleri, altın madenciliği’nin çevresel açıdan değerlendirilmesi. Kent Akademisi, 9(26), 26–39.
17. Folke, C., Pritchard Jr, L., Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Svedin, U. (2007). The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: Ten years later. Ecology and Society, 12(1), Article 30. doi:10.5751/ES-02064-120130
18. Folke, C., Colding, J., & Berkes, F. (2003). Building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. In F. Berkes, J. Colding, & C. Folke (Eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change (pp. 352–387). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Fornace, K., Manin, B. O., Matthiopoulos, J., Ferguson, H. M., Drakeley, C., Ahmed, K., … Chua, T. H. (2022). A protocol for a longitudinal, observational cohort study of infection and exposure to zoonotic and vector-borne diseases across a land-use gradient in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo: A socio-ecological systems approach. Wellcome Open Research, 7, 119. doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17794.1
20. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
21. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903
22. Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
23. Haddaway, N. R. (2021). Metal mining impacts on social ecological systems in boreal and Arctic regions. searchRxiv. doi:10.1079/searchRxiv.20210350286
24. Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York: John Wiley & Sons. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). (2022). Türkiye: Mining and biodiversity report. Retrieved from https://www.iisd.org
25. Kitto, S. C., Chesters, J., & Grbich, C. (2008). Quality in qualitative research. Medical Journal of Australia, 188(4), 243–246. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01595.x
26. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Leach, M., Stirling, A. C., & Scoones, I. (2010). Dynamic sustainabilities: Technology, environment, social justice. London: Taylor & Francis.
28. Maden ve Petrol İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü (MAPEG). (2025). Maden ve Petrol İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü. Retrieved from https://mapeg.gov.tr
29. Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3), Article 8. doi:10.17169/fqs-11.3.1428
30. Mestanza-Ramón, S., Paz-Mena, C., López-Paredes, C., Jimenez-Gutierrez, M., Herrera-Morales, G., D’Orio, G., & Straface, S. (2021). History, current situation and challenges of gold mining in Ecuador’s litoral region. Land, 10(1220), 1–18. doi:10.3390/land1011220
31. Mudd, G. M. (2007). Gold mining in Australia: Linking historical trends and environmental and resource sustainability. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(7–8), 629–644. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2007.04.006
32. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. doi:10.1177/1609406917733847
33. Özen, H., & Özen, Ş. (2011). Örgüt ve toplumsal hareket kuramları açısından Türkiye’de altın madenciliği alanındaki çatışmaların incelenmesi. TÜBİTAK SOBAG Projesi, Proje No: 109K403.
34. Özen, Ş., & Özen, H. (2022). Altın madeni projelerinin özellikleri yerel toplulukların direniş düzeyini nasıl etkiler? Karşılaştırmalı bir araştırma. İstanbul University Journal of Sociology, 42(2), 493–524. doi:10.26650/SJ.2022.42.2.0061
35. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354–365. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001
36. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
37. Pelling, M. (2011). Adaptation to climate change: From resilience to transformation. London: Routledge.
38. Phelan, A., & McCarthy, S. (2016). Missed care in community nursing. Dublin, Ireland: UCD & IMNO.
39. Phelan, A., & Kirwan, M. (2020). Contextualising missed care in two healthcare inquiries using a socio-ecological systems approach. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(17–18), 3527–3540. doi:10.1111/jocn.15360
40. Ribot, J. C., & Peluso, N. L. (2003). A theory of access. Rural Sociology, 68(2), 153–181. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x
41. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
42. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
43. Thaivalappil, A., Young, I., & Papadopoulos, A. (2024). More than a framework? Applying socioecological models within mental health and community psychology inquiries. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 43(3), 37–45. doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2024-002
44. Townsend, N., & Foster, C. (2013). Developing and applying a socio-ecological model to the promotion of healthy eating in the school. Public Health Nutrition, 16(6), 1101–1108. doi:10.1017/S1368980012005855
45. Tilot, V., Willaert, K., Guilloux, B., Chen, W., Mulalap, C. Y., Gaulme, F., … Dahl, A. (2021). Traditional dimensions of seabed resource management in the context of deep sea mining in the Pacific: Learning from the socio-ecological interconnectivity between island communities and the ocean realm. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 637938. doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.637938
46. Tudge, J., & Rosa, M. E. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(4), 243–258. doi:10.1111/jftr.12014
47. Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press.
48. Yaşın, Z. T. (2019). Contextualizing the rise of environmental movements in Turkey: Two instances of anti-gold mining resistance. In O. İnal & E. Turhan (Eds.), Transforming socio-natures in Turkey (pp. 137–216). London: Routledge.
49. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (12th ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.