Ekoköylerin Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma için Değerlendirilmesi: Kocaeli, Türkiye Örneği

Öz

Ekoköy kavramı, sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve iklim değişikliğiyle mücadele ihtiyacına yanıt olarak insan faaliyetlerini doğal çevreyle bütünleştirmek amacıyla ortaya çıkmıştır. Araştırmada, Kocaeli'deki Narköy, Kurtyeri ve Ketenciler Ekoköylerini değerlendirerek Türkiye'deki ekoköylerin potansiyelinin araştırılması ve sürdürülebilirliği teşvik etmek için kapsamlı bir sürdürülebilirlik kriterleri setinin oluşturulması amaçlanmaktadır. Bu amaçla, seçilen ekoköylerle ilgili bilgiler toplanmış ve bu yapıların ekonomik, sosyal ve çevresel sürdürülebilirlik için belirlenen kriterlere uyumları araştırılmıştır. Metodolojik olarak, ekoköylerin yöneticileri, çalışanları ve sakinlerinden oluşan katılımcılarla yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılmış ve alan yerinde gözlemlenmiştir. Sonuçlara göre, incelenen ekoköyler, tüm ekoköy ilkelerini içermek yerine ekoturizm gibi bir kavrama öncelik verme eğilimindedir. Bu durum komşu yerleşimlerle sınırlı entegrasyona ve üyelik bakımından çeşitlilik eksikliğine yol açmaktadır. Kocaeli örneklerinde bu tip eksiklikleri gidermek için potansiyel işbirliği fırsatları olduğu tespit edilmiş ve daha sürdürülebilir ekoköyler elde etmek için bir organizasyon yapısı önerilmiştir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, eko-çiftlik, eko-turizm ve yeşil okul bileşenlerine sahip ekoköylerin yapısını ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç olarak, çalışma, ekoköy sürdürülebilirliğine ilişkin kapsamlı bir analiz sunarak, eğitim, turizm ve tarımdaki organizasyonel yapıları inceleyerek ve belediyeler ile yerel girişimler için ekoköy modelinin uzun vadeli sürdürülebilirliğini desteklemede yol gösterici nitelikte entegre bir sürdürülebilirlik çerçevesi önererek literatüre katkıda bulunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekoköy
• Sürdürülebilirlik
• Eko-turizm
• Ekolojik Çiftlik
• Permakültür
• Doğal Çevre

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışma herhangi bir kurum, kuruluş veya fon tarafından desteklenmemiştir.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma, Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etik Kurulu’nun 23.05.2025 tarihli ve E.1016965 sayılı onayı doğrultusunda etik kurallara uygun olarak yürütülmüştür. Çalışmanın hazırlanma sürecinde bilimsel ve etik ilkelere uyulduğu ve yararlanılan tüm çalışmaların kaynakçada belirtildiği beyan olunur.

Teşekkür

Yazarlar, alan araştırması kapsamında gerçekleştirilen görüşmelere katılım sağlayan yetkililere içten teşekkürlerini sunmaktadır. Değerli görüş ve katkıları, bu çalışmayı büyük ölçüde zenginleştirmiştir.

Evaluation of Ecovillages for Sustainable Development through Case Studies from Kocaeli, Türkiye

Öz

The concept of ecovillage has emerged to integrate human activities with the natural environment in response to the urgent need for sustainable development and climate change mitigation. This research aims to investigate the potential of ecovillages in Türkiye by evaluating Narköy, Kurtyeri and Ketenciler Ecovillages in Kocaeli and to develop a comprehensive set of sustainability criteria to foster sustainability. To do this, information was gathered regarding the operational structures, and an investigation was conducted into their adherence to the criteria established for economic, social, and environmental sustainability. Methodologically, observations and semi-structured interviews were conducted with informants, including managers, employees, and residents of the ecovillages. According to the results, the observed ecovillages tend to prioritise a concept such as eco-tourism rather than containing all ecovillage principles, resulting in limited integration with neighbouring communities and a lack of diversity in membership. It was found that there are potential collaborative opportunities in Kocaeli cases to address each shortcoming, and an organisational structure was proposed to achieve more sustainable ecovillages.  Accordingly, the study reveals the structure of ecovillages with components: eco-farm, eco-tourism and green school. Consequently, the study contributes to the literature by providing a comprehensive analysis of ecovillage sustainability, examining organisational structures in education, tourism, and agriculture, and proposing an integrated sustainability framework that serves as a guide for municipalities and grassroots initiatives in supporting the long-term viability of the ecovillage model.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ecovillage
• Sustainability
• Eco-tourism
• Eco-farm
• Permaculture
• Natural environment

Destekleyen Kurum

The author(s) acknowledge that they received no funding to support this research.

Etik Beyan

This study was conducted in accordance with ethical principles, based on the approval of the Manisa Celal Bayar University Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee for Science and Engineering (dated 23.05.2025, decision no: E.1016965). It is hereby declared that that scientific and ethical principles were followed during the preparation of this study and that all studies used are stated in the bibliography.

Teşekkür

The authors would like to express sincere gratitude to the officials and representatives who participated in the interviews conducted during the field research in the ecovillages. Their valuable insights and contributions have greatly enriched the study.

Kaynakça

1. J. E. Erdinç and F. S. Kariptaş, “Kentlerden Yorulan İnsanların Kaçış Alanları Eko-Köylrt,” Yeşil Bina Sürdürülebilir Yapı Teknolojileri Dergisi, no. 34, 2015.
2. N. Pais, “GEN History The History of the Global Ecovillage Network: 1991-2015.”
3. Ö. Vural and M. Yaman, “Bir Alternatif Yaşam Biçimi Olarak Eko-köylerin İncelenmesi,” Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, pp. 1–18, 2022.
4. GEN, “What is an Ecovillage?” Accessed: Mar. 02, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ecovillage.org/ecovillages/what-is-an-ecovillage/
5. M. Singh, A. K. Sinha, and P. Singh, “Maintaining the biodiversity of informal protected areas: A collaborative conservational approach,” International Journal of Conservation Science, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 107–116, 2014.
6. G. Rajović and J. Bulatović, “Eco Tourism with Special Review on Eco -Village,” Scientific Electronic Archives, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 56–65, 2015, [Online]. Available: http://www.seasinop.com.br/revista/index.php?journal=SEA&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=157
7. J. Lockyer and J. R. Veteto, “Engaging Ecotopia An Introduction,” in Environmental Anthropology Engaging Ecotopia: Bioregionalism, Permaculture, and Ecovillages, New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2013.
8. R. Gilman, “The Eco-village Challenge,” Context Institute. [Online]. Available: https://www.context.org/iclib/ic29/gilman1/

9. A. Spielvogel, “Findhorn: The Evolution of a Spiritual Utopian Community,” J. Gen. Educ., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 231–244, 1985.
10. C. Riddell, The Findhorn Community: Creating a Human Identity for the 21st Century, First. Findhorn Pr, 1997.
11. E. Doğru, Türkiye’de Ekoköyler ve Ekoçiftlikler. Ankara: Iksad Publications, 2023. [Online]. Available: www.iksadyayinevi.com
12. M. A. Dias and C. F. B. Loureiro, “A Systemic Approach To Sustainability - the Interconnection of Its Dimensions in Ecovillage Practices,” Ambiente & Sociedade, vol. 22, 2019, doi: 10.1590/1809-4422asoc0012r1vu19l1ao.
13. GEN, “GEN Ecovillage Transition Strategy 2015-2020.” Accessed: Jan. 19, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://ecovillage.org/wp-content/uploads/drupal_files/files/6_gen_future_strategy.pdf
14. L. Newman and D. Nixon, “Farming in an agriburban ecovillage development: An approach to limiting agricultural/residential conflict,” Sage Open, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1–10, 2014, doi: 10.1177/2158244014562389.
15. A. Kirby, “Redefining social and environmental relations at the ecovillage at Ithaca: A case study,” J. Environ. Psychol., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 323–332, 2003, doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00025-2.
16. A. Sökmen, “8bin100 Projesi,” hayalim bi’ çiftlik. [Online]. Available: http://www.hayalimbiciftlik.com/8bin100-projesi/
17. C. Ulug, L. Horlings, and E. M. Trell, “Collective identity supporting sustainability transformations in ecovillage communities,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 13, no. 15, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13158148.
18. Ö. Tuğun and A. Karaman, “A Sustainability Model For Gaining The Core Villages To The Eco Tourism,” MEGARON / Yıldız Technical University, Faculty of Architecture E-Journal, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 321–337, 2014, doi: 10.5505/megaron.2014.96268.
19. D. Greenberg, “Chapter Fifteen . Academia ’ s Hidden Curriculum and Ecovillages as Campuses for Sustainability Education From the book Environmental Anthropology Engaging Ecotopia,” in Environmental Anthropology Engaging Ecotopia, New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2013. doi: 10.1515/9780857458803-021.
20. P. A. Cunningham, “Exploring the efficacy of consensus-based decision-making: A pilot study of the Cloughjordan Ecovillage, Ireland,” International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 233–253, 2014, doi: 10.1108/IJHMA-06-2013-0040.
21. I. W. Zucker, “Why I am Moving to Findhorn,” Communities, no. 124, pp. 38–39, 2004.
22. A. Aristizabal, “Sociocracy to the Rescue at Aldeafeliz Ecovillage: How Sociocracy Can Help Communities,” Communities, pp. 53–76, 2015.
23. K. Litfin, “Ontologies of Sustainability in Ecovillage Culture,” in The Greening of Everyday Life: Challenging Practices, Imagining Possibilities, J. M. Meyer and J. Kersten, Eds., Oxford University Press, 2016.
24. A. Brombin, “Faces of sustainability in Italian ecovillages: Food as ‘contact zone,’” Int. J. Consum. Stud., vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 468–477, 2015, doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12225.
25. R. Skrzypczyński, “Rural Experiments with the Management of Basic Resources. Key Characteristics of European Ecovillages Aiming at Partial Self-Sufficiency in Water, Food and Energy,” European Countryside, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 768–784, 2021, doi: 10.2478/euco-2021-0041.
26. O. M. Price, S. Ville, E. Heffernan, B. Gibbons, and M. Johnsson, “Finding convergence: Economic perspectives and the economic practices of an Australian ecovillage,” Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., vol. 34, no. April 2019, pp. 209–220, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2019.12.007.
27. M. Ü. Hughes, “Sustainable Living in the City: The Case of an Urban Ecovillage,” Handbook of Engaged Sustainability, vol. 1–2, no. June 2018, pp. 1–1208, 2018, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-71312-0.
28. L. Mychajluk, “Learning sustainability through enterprise work in ecovillages,” Studies in Continuing Education, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 246–265, 2024, doi: 10.1080/0158037X.2023.2222072.
29. S. N. Adalilar, S. Alkibay, and Z. Eser, “Ecovillages as a Destination and a Study of Consumer Approaches to Ecovillages,” Procedia Economics and Finance, vol. 23, no. October 2014, pp. 539–546, 2015, doi: 10.1016/s2212-5671(15)00561-4.
30. S. Barani, A. H. Alibeygi, and A. Papzan, “A framework to identify and develop potential ecovillages: Meta-analysis from the studies of world’s ecovillages,” Sustain. Cities Soc., vol. 43, no. May, pp. 275–289, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2018.08.036.
31. M. Daly, “Quantifying the environmental impact of ecovillages and co-housing communities: a systematic literature review,” Local Environ., vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 1358–1377, 2017, doi: 10.1080/13549839.2017.1348342.
32. Z. Szabó, V. Prohászka, and Á. Sallay, “The energy system of an ecovillage: Barriers and enablers,” Land (Basel)., vol. 10, no. 7, 2021, doi: 10.3390/land10070682.
33. Y. Selikhova, “Application of Renewable Energy Sources in the Design of Energy-Efficient Ecological Settlements (on the Kharkiv Region),” in Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol. 456, Cham: Springer, 2023, pp. 343–353. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-22500-0_23.
34. G. Siracusa, A. D. La Rosa, P. Palma, and E. La Mola, “New frontiers for sustainability: Emergy evaluation of an eco-village,” Environ. Dev. Sustain., vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 845–855, 2008, doi: 10.1007/s10668-007-9087-2.
35. A. Biçer, “Research on the Physical Properties of the Building Stones in East Black See Region,” NATURENGS MTU Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences Malatya Turgut Ozal University, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1–6, 2023, doi: 10.46572/naturengs.1312384.
36. D. Van and S. Kasper, “Society for Human Ecology Redefining Community in the Ecovillage,” Source: Human Ecology Review, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 12–24, 2008.
37. A. Javaid, F. Creutzig, and S. Bamberg, “Determinants of low-carbon transport mode adoption: systematic review of reviews,” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 15, no. 10, 2020, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aba032.
38. D. Kılıç and F. İşcan, “Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de Ekolojik Köy Uygulamaları,” in 17. Türkiye Harita Bilimsel ve Teknik Kurultayı, Ankara: TMMOB Harita ve Kadastro Mühendisleri Odası, 2019.
39. E. Arıcan, “Individual Escapism or Eco-Community: Selected Cases of Ecovillage Initiatives in Turkey,” Doctor of Philosophy, Middle East Technical University, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/39127%0Ahttps://cris.brighton.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/4755978/Julius+Ojebode%27s+Thesis.pdf%0Ausir.salford.ac.uk/29369/1/Angela_Darvill_thesis_esubmission.pdf%0Ahttps://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/ha
40. M. Güleryüz, “Bir Ütopya Hareketi Olarak Eko-Köyler: Türkiye’deki Örnekler Üzerine Bir İnceleme,” 2013.
41. Ö. Itez, “Kurtyeri Ekoköyü.” [Online]. Available: https://www.arkitera.com/proje/kurtyeri-ekokoyu/
42. E. Drahşan, “Kurtyeri Ekoköyü,” Arkiv. [Online]. Available: https://www.arkiv.com.tr/proje/kurtyeri-koyu/10344
43. O. Kuşçu, “‘Doğa ile Yarışmaya Kalkmayan Bir Tesis’ NARKÖY,” Ecoiq. [Online]. Available: https://www.ekoiq.com/doga-ile-yarismaya-kalkmayan-bir-tesis-narkoy/
44. Z. Y. Erdoğan and B. Zengin, “Alternatif Turizm Türü Olarak Kirsal Turizm Potansiyelinin Değerlendirilmesine Yönelik Bir Örnek Olay Analizi: Narköy,” ASOS the Journal of Academic Social Sciences, no. 50, pp. 300–312, 2017, doi: 10.16992/asos.12477.
45. Narköy, “Narköy nedir,” https://narkoy.com/narkoy/narkoy-nedir.
46. D. D. Polat, “Ecological Hotels in Sustainability: Narköy Ecological Hotel and Training Center,” Journal of Travel and Hospitality Management, vol. 14, no. 2, 2017.
47. XIX, “Doğaya Az Yük Olmak,” xıx. [Online]. Available: https://xxi.com.tr/i/dogaya-az-yuk-olmak
48. Kocaeli Municipality, “Zemin ve Deprem İnceleme Müdürlüğü Vizyon,” 2008.
49. Doğu Marmara Kalkınma Ajansı, “‘Sakarya’da Tarim ve Hayvancilik Sektör Anali̇zi̇ ve Öneri̇ler Raporu’ Projesi̇,” 2015.
50. ozgurkocaeli, “Doğal yaşamın adresi : Ketenci Köyü.” [Online]. Available: https://www.ozgurkocaeli.com.tr/haber/4492371/dogal-yasamin-adresi-ketenci-koyu
51. ozgurkocaeli, “İlk ekolojik köy; Ketenciler.” [Online]. Available: https://www.ozgurkocaeli.com.tr/haber/4438821/ilk-ekolojik-koy-ketenciler
52. A. Y. Aslantürk, “Çevrenin Siyasallaşmasında Kadın Ve Doğanın Dönüşümü: Ekofeminizm,” Social Science Development Journal, 2018.