A Framework for Evaluating the Sustainability of Multilayered Historic Rural Cultural Landscapes: The Case of Tahtalı Neighborhood, Bursa

Abstract

This study examines Tahtalı Neighborhood in Nilüfer district of Bursa as a multilayered rural cultural landscape area where layers from the Ancient, Byzantine, and Ottoman periods can be read together. The research employed a qualitative method; literature review, historical data analysis, fieldwork, on-site observation, photographic documentation, and spatial analyses were considered together. The findings show that historical layers from the Ancient, Byzantine, and Ottoman periods can be read together within the same topographical system in Tahtalı Neighborhood. The area has been documented as a multi-layered rural cultural landscape where defensive structures, religious sites, necropolis areas, rural settlement patterns, and social memory are integrated. Accordingly, the study proposes a holistic and relational assessment framework called the "Multi-Layered Rural Cultural Landscape Continuity Framework" for the preservation and evaluation of multi-layered rural cultural landscapes.

Keywords

• Cultural Landscape
• Spatial Continuity
• Rural Heritage
• Tahtalı Neighborhood
• Cultural Heritage and Conservation.

Thanks

The article complies with national and international research and publication ethics. Ethics Committee approval was not required for the study. During the preparation of this manuscript; artificial intelligence-based tools were used solely for translation, grammatical corrections, and improving the readability and clarity of the text through wording and, sentence refinement. Artificial intelligence was not used, in the design of the study, data collection, data generation, data analysis, interpretation of the results, or the production of the scientific findings. The author takes full responsibility, for the accuracy, integrity, and scientific content of the manuscript.

Çok Katmanlı Tarihi Kırsal Kültürel Peyzajların Sürdürülebilirliğinin Değerlendirilmesine Yönelik Bir Çerçeve: Bursa Tahtalı Mahallesi Örneği

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Bursa'nın Nilüfer ilçesindeki Tahtalı Mahallesi'ni, Antik, Bizans ve Osmanlı dönemlerine ait katmanların birlikte okunabileceği çok katmanlı bir kırsal kültürel peyzaj alanı olarak incelemektedir. Araştırmada nitel yöntem kullanılmış; literatür taraması, tarihi veri analizi, saha çalışması, yerinde gözlem, fotoğrafik dokümantasyon ve mekânsal analizler birlikte ele alınmıştır.Bulgular, Tahtalı Mahallesi'nde Antik, Bizans ve Osmanlı dönemlerine ait tarihi katmanların aynı topografik sistem içinde birlikte okunabildiğini göstermektedir. Bölge; savunma yapıları, dini mekanlar, nekropol alanları, kırsal yerleşim düzenleri ve sosyal hafızanın bütünleştiği çok katmanlı bir kırsal kültürel peyzaj olarak belgelenmiştir. Bulgular, tarihi katmanlar arasındaki mekânsal sürekliliğin ve topografik ilişkilerin bölgenin kültürel kimliğini şekillendirdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Buna göre, çalışma, çok katmanlı kırsal kültürel peyzajların korunması ve değerlendirilmesi için "Çok Katmanlı Kırsal Kültürel Peyzaj Süreklilik Çerçevesi" adı verilen bütünsel ve ilişkisel bir değerlendirme çerçevesi önermektedir.

Keywords

• Kültürel Peyzaj
• Mekânsal Süreklilik
• Kırsal Miras
• Tahtalı Mahallesi
• Kültürel Miras ve Koruma.

Thanks

The article complies with national and international research and publication ethics. Ethics Committee approval was not required for the study. During the preparation of this manuscript; artificial intelligence-based tools were used solely for translation, grammatical corrections, and improving the readability and clarity of the text through wording and, sentence refinement. Artificial intelligence was not used, in the design of the study, data collection, data generation, data analysis, interpretation of the results, or the production of the scientific findings. The author takes full responsibility, for the accuracy, integrity, and scientific content of the manuscript.

References

1. Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are ımportant for the future. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002
2. Author (2026). Personal photo archive. [Personal collection].
3. Aşur, F., Karaman, K., Yeler, O., & Kaskan, S. (2025). Assessing rural landscape change within the planning and management framework: The case of Topaktaş Village (Van, Turkiye). Land, 14(10), 1991. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14101991
4. Bursa Regional Council for the Conservation of Cultural Heritage. (2021). Karar No: 10860 (Toplantı Tarihi ve No: 27/10/2021-502). T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı. https://korumakurullari.ktb.gov.tr/Eklenti/131674,27012021-tarih-ve-10860-sayili-kurul-kararipdf.pdf?0
5. Bursa’da Kültür (2026). https://www.bursadakultur.org/niluferin_tarihi.htm. Access Date: May 15, 2026.
6. Bursada Bugün. (2014). Bursa’da tarihi kale köyde herşeyi yasaklattı - Özel haber. https://www.bursadabugun.com/haber/bursa-da-tarihi-kale-koyde-herseyi-yasaklatti-ozel-haber-372812.html. Access Date: May 15, 2026.
7. Corner, J. (1999). The agency of mapping: Speculation, critique and invention. In D. Cosgrove (Ed.), Mappings (pp. 213–252). Reaktion Books. https://research.design.ncsu.edu/co-lab/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/corner-agency_of_mapping.pdf
8. Çakan, M. R., Kishalı, E., & Yaman, A. (2026). The morphology of continuity: An analytical documentation of vernacular architecture in Phoenix Rural Settlements. Heritage, 9(2), 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9020084

9. Dragan, A., Creţan, R., Jucu, I. S., & Oancea, O. A. (2024). Rural landscapes as cultural heritage and ıdentity along a Romanian River. Heritage, 7(8), 4354-4373. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7080205
10. Fairclough, G. (2008). A new landscape for cultural heritage management: Characterisation as a management tool. In: Lozny, L.R. (eds) Landscapes Under Pressure. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-28461-3_4
11. Fowler, P. J. (2003). World heritage cultural landscapes 1992–2002. https://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_papers_06_en.pdf
12. Hua, H., & Zhou, S. (2015). Human-environment system boundaries: A case study of the Honghe Hani Rice Terraces as a World Heritage Cultural Landscape. Sustainability, 7(8), 10733-10755. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70810733
13. ICOMOS-IFLA. (2017). ICOMOS-IFLA principles concerning rural landscapes as heritage. https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/GA2017_6-3-1_RuralLandscapesPrinciples_EN_adopted-15122017.pdf
14. Jones, M. (2003). The concept of cultural landscape: Discourse and narratives. In: Palang, H., Fry, G. (eds) Landscape Interfaces. Landscape Series, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0189-1_3
15. Li, X., Zhou, X., Weng, F. , Ding,F., Wu,Y. & Yi,Z. (2024). Evolution of cultural landscape heritage layers and value assessment in urban countryside historic districts: the case of Jiufeng Sheshan, Shanghai, China. Herit Sci, 12, 96. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-024-01204-6
16. Limongiello, M., Radaelli, L., & De Girolamo, L. (2026). An integrated workflow from reality-based survey to HBIM and immersive reconstruction: The Aeclanum Archaeological Park. Heritage, 9 (5), 174. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9050174
17. Mitchell, N., Rössler, M., & Tricaud, P. M. (Eds.). (2013). World heritage cultural landscapes: A handbook for conservation and management. UNESCO. https://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_papers_26_en.pdf
18. Nora, P. (1989). Between memory and history: Les lieux de mémoire. Representations, 26, 7–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/2928520
19. Sauer, C. O. (1925). The morphology of landscape. University of California Publications in Geography.https://archive.org/download/universityofc02univ/universityofc02univ.pdf
20. Smith, L. (2006). Uses of Heritage. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203602263
21. Taylor, K., & Lennon, J. (2011). Cultural landscapes: A bridge between culture and nature?. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 17 (6), 537-554. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2011.618246
22. Taylor, K., & Lennon, J. (Eds.). (2012). Managing Cultural Landscapes (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203128190 Journal of Protected Areas Research, 2026, 5(1), 47-59.
23. Tuan, Y.F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press.
24. UNESCO. (1992). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO. https://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide92.pdf
25. UNESCO. (2000). The Loire Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/933/. Access Date: May 15, 2026.
26. UNESCO. (2002). Upper Middle Rhine Valley. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1066/. Access Date: May 15, 2026.
27. UNESCO. (2004). Val d’Orcia. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1026/. Access Date: May 15, 2026.
28. UNESCO. (2011). Recommendation on the historic urban landscape, including a glossary of definitions. UNESCO General Conference. https://whc.unesco.org/document/160163.
29. UNESCO. (2017). The English Lake District. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/422/. Access Date: May 15, 2026.
30. Wang, H., Xie, B., Zeng, Y., Liu, A., Liu, B., & Qin, L. (2025). Intergenerational transmission of collective memory in public spaces: A case study of Menghe, a Historic and Cultural Town. Sustainability, 17(19), 8596. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198596
31. Yin, J., Tang, X., Zhang, W., Liang, X., & Zhu, J. (2019). Where to preserve? Evaluating the ıntegrity principle for delineating protection scopes of Kaiping Diaolou and Villages. Sustainability, 11(8), 2196. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082196