Türkiye Bağlamında Biyofilik Planlama Yaklaşımı: İzmir Örneği

Abstract

Biyofilik kentleşme yaklaşımı, doğa ile insan arasındaki kopan ilişkiyi yeniden kurmayı hedefleyen ve kentleri sosyal-ekolojik sistemler olarak ele alan bütüncül bir planlama paradigmasıdır. İklim değişikliği, hızlı kentleşme, ekolojik bozulma ve toplumsal refah kaybı gibi sorunların arttığı günümüzde biyofilik ilkeler; sürdürülebilirlik, sağlık ve dirençlilik politikalarının kesişiminde yer almaktadır. Bu çalışma, biyofilik kentleşmenin uluslararası ölçekte nasıl kurumsallaştığını incelemekte ve bu yaklaşımdan elde edilen deneyimleri Türkiye’nin planlama sistemiyle ilişkilendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, literatür taraması, doküman analizi ve karşılaştırmalı örnek olay incelemesinin birlikte kullanıldığı nitel bir desene dayanmaktadır. Singapur, Wellington, Norfolk ve Portland kentleri biyofilik politika, yönetişim ve mekânsal stratejileri bakımından değerlendirilmiş; elde edilen bulgular Türkiye’deki yasal, yönetsel ve mekânsal planlama yapısıyla karşılaştırılmıştır. Bulgular, uluslararası örneklerde biyofilik kentleşmenin yalnızca fiziksel yeşil alan artışıyla sınırlı kalmadığını; doğa temelli çözümler, veri odaklı yönetim, toplumsal katılım ve iklim uyumu politikalarıyla bütünleşen bir yönetişim modeli oluşturduğunu göstermektedir. Türkiye bağlamında ise biyofilik yaklaşımın kurumsallaşmasının erken aşamada olduğu, ancak İzmir, Karşıyaka’da gerçekleştirilen uygulamaların bu dönüşüm için önemli bir temel oluşturduğu görülmektedir. Çalışma, biyofilik kentleşmenin Türkiye’de sürdürülebilir, dirençli ve insan odaklı kent politikalarının şekillenmesi için bütüncül bir çerçeve sunduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Biyofilik kent
• biyofilik tasarım
• doğa temelli çözümler
• kentsel sürdürülebilirlik

Biophilic Planning Approaches in the Turkish Context: The Case of İzmir

Abstract

The biophilic urbanisation approach is a holistic planning paradigm that seeks to restore the broken relationship between humans and nature, conceptualising cities as socio-ecological systems. In an era marked by climate change, rapid urbanisation, ecological degradation, and declining societal well-being, biophilic principles lie at the intersection of sustainability, public health, and resilience policies. This study examines how biophilic urbanisation has been institutionalised at the international scale and aims to relate the insights derived from this approach to Türkiye’s planning system. The research is based on a qualitative design that integrates literature review, document analysis, and comparative case study methods. The cities of Singapore, Wellington, Norfolk and Portland are evaluated in terms of their biophilic policies, governance structures, and spatial strategies, and the findings are compared with Türkiye’s legal, administrative, and spatial planning framework. The results indicate that biophilic urbanisation in international cases extends far beyond the mere expansion of green spaces; instead, it constitutes a governance model integrated with nature-based solutions, data-driven management, public participation, and climate adaptation policies. In the Turkish context, biophilic urbanisation is at an early stage of institutionalisation; however, the initiatives implemented in İzmir, Karşıyaka, provide a significant basis for this transformation. Overall, the study demonstrates that biophilic urbanisation offers a comprehensive framework for shaping sustainable, resilient, and human-centred urban policies in Türkiye.

Keywords

• Biophilic city
• biophilic design
• nature-based solutions
• urban sustainability

References

1. Acar, C., & Acar, H. (2020). Kentsel mekanlarda biyofilik peyzaj yaklaşımları ve yeşil altyapı: Singapur örneği. Peyzaj-Eğitim, Bilim, Kültür ve Sanat Dergisi, 2(1), 33-45. https://izlik.org/JA38ML87YM
2. Andreucci, M. B., Loder, A., Brown, M., & Brajković, J. (2021). Exploring challenges and opportunities of biophilic urban design: Evidence from research and experimentation. Sustainability, 13(8), 4323. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084323
3. Beatley, T. (2016). Handbook of biophilic city planning & design. Island Press.
4. Beatley, T., & Newman, P. (2013). Biophilic cities are sustainable, resilient cities. Sustainability, 5(8), 3328-3345. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5083328
5. Biophilic Cities Network (BCN). (2025a). Karşıyaka (İzmir City), Turkey. https://www.biophiliccities.org/karsiyaka-izmir (son erişim: 29.10.2025).
6. Biophilic Cities Network (BCN). (2025b). BiophilicCities: Our Vision Connecting Cities and Nature. https://www.biophiliccities.org/our-vision (son erişim: 08.10.2025).
7. Biophilic Cities Network (BCN). (2025c). Partner Cities Map. https://www.biophiliccities.org/partner-cities. (son erişim: 15.10.2025).
8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589-597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

9. Browning, W., Ryan, C., & Clancy, J. (2014). 14 Patterns of biophilic design: Improving health & well-being in the built environment. Terrapin Bright Green, LLC, 1-60. https://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/14-Patterns-of-Biophilic-Design-Terrapin-2014p.pdf
10. Cabanek, A., Zingoni de Baro, M. E., & Newman, P. (2020). Biophilic streets: a design framework for creating multiple urban benefits. Sustainable Earth, 3(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42055-020-00027-0
11. City of Norfolk. (2022). plaNorfolk2030. https://www.norfolk.gov/1376/plaNorfolk2030. (son erişim: 8.10.2025).
12. City of Portland. (2007). ENB-4.19 - Green Streets Policy and Green Streets Cross-Bureau Phase 2 Report. https://www.portland.gov/policies/environment-built/sewer-stormwater-erosion-control/enb-419-green-streets-policy-and-green. (son erişim: 2.9.2025).
13. Çabuk, S. (2019). Modern Türk şehir planlamasında aktif yeşil alan standardı: Kayseri şehir planlarında zamansal bir inceleme. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 280-291. https://doi.org/10.24011/barofd.521898
14. Demir, T., & Söğüt, M.A. (2024). Biyofilik Tasarımın Konutlarda; Kullanıcı Psikolojisine ve Yaşam Kalitesine Etkisi. Kırklareli Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 69-89. https://izlik.org/JA45EL24DN
15. Doğan, F. (2025). Kent parklarının biyofilik tasarım parametrelerine göre değerlendirilmesi: Samsun Çakırlar Parkı örneği. Turkish Journal of Forest Science, 9(1), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.32328/turkjforsci.1513280
16. EBRD & AECOM. (2020). İzmir Green City Action Plan (GCAP). https://ebrdgreencities.com/assets/Uploads/PDF/GCAP-EN_Optimized.pdf. (son erişim: 1.11.2025).
17. Errante, L. (2022). Nature-based solutions and biophilic design eco-systemic approaches to regeneration. On Sustainable Built Environment between Connections and Greenery, 7, 118-131. https://unipapress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/07_P63_ERRANTE.pdf
18. Esgil, M., & Yamaçlı, R. (2024). Biyofilik tasarım yaklaşımı olarak yeşil cephe uygulamaları üzerine araştırma. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Teknoloji ve Uygulamalı Bilimler Dergisi, 6(2), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.56809/icujtas.1318721
19. Gökten, İ., & Kelkit, A. (2021). Ankara İmrahor Vadisi ve İncesu Deresinin biyofilik tasarım yaklaşımı içinde değerlendirilmesi. ÇOMÜ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 71-78. https://doi.org/10.33202/comuagri.837716
20. Guan, X., Roös, P., & Jones, D. S. (2018). Biophilic city, vertical city, forest city? Towards an Architectree. Proceedings of the IFLA. 814-827. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376207289_Biophilic_city_vertical_city_forest_city_Towards_an_Architectree
21. Gül, A., Dinç, G., Akın, T., & Koçak, A. İ. (2020). Kentsel açık ve yeşil alanların mevcut yasal durumu ve uygulamadaki sorunlar. İdealkent, 11 (Kentleşme ve Ekonomi Özel Sayısı), 1281-1312. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.650461
22. Harting, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Reviews of Public Health, 35, 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443
23. Hung, S. H., & Chang, C. Y. (2021). Health benefits of evidence-based biophilic-designed environments: A review. Journal of People, Plants, and Environment, 24(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.11628/ksppe.2021.24.1.1
24. Iqbal, A., & Mansell, W. (2021). A thematic analysis of multiple pathways between nature engagement activities and well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 580992. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.580992
25. İrfanoğlu, H. İ., & Suri, L. (2022). Biyofilik Tasarim Kriterlerinin Mekanlar Üzerinden Değerlendirilmesi. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 21(41), 95-116. https://doi.org/10.55071/ticaretfbd.1115254
26. İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi (2021). İzmir’in Doğayla Uyumlu Yaşam Stratejisi. İzmir. https://skpo.izmir.bel.tr/Upload_Files/FckFiles/file/2020/izmir_doga_stratejisi.pdf (son erişim: 5.10.2025).
27. Joye, Y., & Van den Berg, A. (2011). Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 10(4), 261-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.07.004
28. Karaşah, B. (2021). Botanik Bahçelerinin Biyofilik Tasarım Kriterleri Doğrultusunda Değerlendirilmesi: Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi Örneği. Kent Akademisi, 14(3), 545-559. https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.981889
29. Kellert, S. R. (2018). Nature by design: The practice of biophilic design. Yale University Press.
30. Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J., & Mador, M. (2011). Biophilic design: the theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life. John Wiley & Sons. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=Es1SDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PR7&ots=qZebXJCH2E&dq=Kellert%2C%20S.%20R.%20(2018).%20Nature%20by%20design%3A%20The%20practice%20of%20biophilic%20design.%20Yale%20University%20Press.&lr&hl=tr&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false
31. Kellert, S., & Calabrese, E. (2015). The practice of biophilic design. London: Terrapin Bright LLC, 3(21), 2021-09. https://biophilicdesign.umn.edu/sites/biophilic-net-positive.umn.edu/files/2021-09/2015_Kellert%20_The_Practice_of_Biophilic_Design.pdf
32. Lee, S., & Kim, Y. (2021). A framework of biophilic urbanism for improving climate change adaptability in urban environments. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 61, 127104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127104
33. Littke, H. (2016). Becoming biophilic: challenges and opportunities for biophilic urbanism in urban planning policy. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-10-2015-0036
34. Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI). (2025). Sustainability focus: Istanbul’s Groundbreaking Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP), Istanbul. https://iclei-europe.org/member-in-the-spotlight/istanbul/ (son erişim: 2.9.2025).
35. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2025). Building Coastal Resilience in Southside Norfolk Communities. https://coast.noaa.gov/states/stories/southside-norfolk.html. (son erişim: 03.10.2025).
36. National Parks Board (NParks). (2025). Singapore’s Greening Journey. https://www.nparks.gov.sg/learn/resources/singapore's-greening-journey. (son erişim: 03.10.2025).
37. Newman, P., Beatley, T., & Boyer, H. (2017). Resilient cities: Overcoming fossil fuel dependence. Island Press.
38. Ökten, S. S. Ö. (2022). Kent parklarının biyofilik tasarım kriterlerine göre yenilenmesi: İskenderun millet parkı örneği. Kent Akademisi, 15(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.984157
39. Özdemir, H. (2024). Integrating Nature into AcademicSpaces: Biophilic Campus. PLANARCH -Design and Planning Research, 8(2), 210-224. https://doi.org/10.54864/planarch.1491955
40. Öztürk, S.P. (2021). Kentlerde biyofilik tasarım ve mekansal adalet ilişkisi: Mahalle parkları deneyimi. Kent Akademisi, 14(3), 533-544. https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.961865
41. Panlasigui, S., Spotswood, E., Beller, E., & Grossinger, R. (2021). Biophilia beyond the building: Applying the tools of urban biodiversity planning to create biophilic cities. Sustainability, 13(5), 2450. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052450
42. Qurraie, B.S., & Eraslan, M.H. (2025) Tarihi dokuların biyofilik tasarım kriterlerine göre değerlendirilmesi: Safranbolu örneği. Journal of Innovative Engineering and Natural Science, 5(2), 447-466. https://doi.org/10.61112/jiens.1508225
43. Susam, K., & Özdemir, Ş. (2024). Sağlık Yapılarının Biyofilik Tasarım Kriterlerine Göre İncelenmesi: İstanbul Başakşehir Çam ve Sakura Şehir Hastanesi Örneği. İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(1), 36-52. https://doi.org/10.47769/izufbed.1501884
44. Şahin, F., & Satıcı, B. (2022). Biyofilik tasarım ve modern mimarlık kesişiminde bir değerlendirme: Carlo Scarpa mimarlığı. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Teknoloji ve Uygulamalı Bilimler Dergisi, 4(2), 21-45. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/icujtas/issue/64668/889205
45. Tan, P.Y., Wang, J., & Sia, A. (2013). Perspectives on five decades of the urban greening of Singapore. Cities, 32, 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.02.001
46. Taş, A. & Mutlu Avinç,G. (2025). Comparison of Historical Innsand Caravanserais in the CappadociaRegion with Roman Mansions within theScope of Biophilic Features. PLANARCH -Design and Planning Research, 9(2), 301-313. https://doi.org/10.54864/planarch.1718451
47. Terrapin Bright Green LLC. (2012). The economics of biophilia. https://office-greens.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Economics-of-Biophilia_Terrapin-Bright-Green-2012.pdf (son erişim: 01.09.2025).
48. Thampanichwat, C., Wongvorachan, T., Sirisakdi, L., Somngam, P., Petlai, T., Singkham, S., Bhutdhakomut, B., & Jinjantarawong, N. (2025). The Architectural Language of Biophilic Design After Architects Use Text-to-Image AI. Buildings, 15(5), 662. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15050662
49. Totaforti, S. (2020). Emerging biophilic urbanism: the value of the human–nature relationship in the urban space. Sustainability, 12(13), 5487. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135487
50. Triman, J. (2016). Portland, Oregon: Green Streets in a River City. In: Handbook of Biophilic City Planning and Design. Island Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-621-9_9
51. Turna, T. & Solmaz, A. (2022). Sürdürülebilir kent yönetimi ve yeşil altyapı kavramı kapsamında çevreci yaklaşımlar: İskenderun örneği. Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi, 13(4), 739-748. https://doi.org/10.24012/dumf.1182834
52. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). (2020). World cities report 2020: The value of sustainable urbanization. https://unhabitat.org/world-cities-report-2020-the-value-of-sustainable-urbanization. (son erişim: 01.09.2025).
53. United Nations Human Settlements Programme UN-Habitat. (2025). United Nations Habitat Assembly adopts Strategic Plan 2026–2029 to advance adequate housing for all. https://unhabitat.org/news/30-may-2025/united-nations-habitat-assembly-adopts-strategic-plan-2026-2029-to-advance-adequate-housing-for-all (son erişim: 07.09.2025).
54. Wellington City Council. (2015). Our Natural Capital: Wellington’s Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2015–2020. https://wellington.govt.nz/your-council/plans-policies-and-bylaws/policies/biodiversity-strategy-and-action-plan (son erişim: 03.11.2025).
55. Wilson, E.O. (1986). Biophilia. Harvard University Press. https://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=gNAuEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP6&dq=Wilson,+E.O.+(1986).+Biophilia.+Harvard+university+press.&ots=xw-rUpjwHR&sig=kDM_LXTUGDaTPIDtX79_rAgvuLw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
56. Xue, F., Gou, Z., Lau, S.S.Y., Lau, S.K., Chung, K.H., & Zhang, J. (2019). From biophilic design to biophilic urbanism: Stakeholders’ perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 1444-1452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.277
57. Yurtgün, H.Ö. (2020). Biyofilik tasarım kriterlerinin açık ofisler üzerinden değerlendirilmesi. IDA: International Design and Art Journal, 2(2), 281-296. https://www.idajournal.com/plugins/generic/pdfJsViewer/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.idajournal.com%2Findex.php%2Fida%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F61%2F31%2F
58. Zhong, W., Schröder, T., & Bekkering, J. (2022). Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: A critical review. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11(1), 114-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.006