Yaşam Biçimi Hareketliliği Bağlamında Orta Toroslar’da Mekansal ve Ekonomik Dönüşüm

Yıl 2023, , 195 - 208, 28.12.2023

Merve Altundal Öncü , Mehmet Somuncu

https://doi.org/10.51800/ecd.1379897

Öz

Dağlık alanların kırsal üretim mekanlarından tüketim mekanlarına dönüşmesinde bu bölgelerde yaşayan kentli sayısının artışı etkili olmaktadır. Söz konusu süreç kentlilerin daha iyi ve kaliteli bir yaşama erişmek motivasyonuyla dağlık alanlara hareket etmesi olarak ele alınmaktadır. Bu çalışmada Orta Toroslar dağlık alanlarının mekansal ve ekonomik dönüşümünde önemli bir faktör olarak yaşam tarzı hareketliliği ele alınmaktadır. Çalışmada nicel ve nitel araştırma yöntemleri kapsamında 91 kişiden bilgi toplanmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuçlarından en önemlisi, Orta Toroslar’da kent ile bağları kopmayan, ancak dağlık alanlarda yaşayan bireylerin dağlık alanları kentli bilinci ile dönüştürmesine ilişkin bulgulardır. Buna göre emlak ve inşaat sektörleri hareketlenirken, altyapı üzerindeki baskı artmaktadır. Orta yaş üzeri ve emekli profilindeki kentlilerin dağlık alanlara doğru gerçekleştirdiği sezonluk hareketlilik, tarihsel pratiklere dayanan ve gelecekte de artarak sürmesi beklenen bir olgudur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yaşam biçimi hareketliliği, dağlık alan, mekansal dönüşüm, ekonomik dönüşüm, Orta Toroslar

Destekleyen Kurum

TÜBİTAK- BİDEB

Teşekkür

Bu çalışma TÜBİTAK 2214-A Doktora Sırası Araştırma Bursu kapsamında desteklenmiştir. Burs kapsamında araştırmaya danışmanlık eden Bern Üniversite’sinden Prof. Dr. Manfred Perlik’e ve TÜBİTAK BİDEB’e teşekkürlerimizi sunarız.

The Spatial and Economic Transformation in Central Taurus Mountains in the Context of Lifestyle Mobility

Öz

The increase in the urban population in rural areas, transforming them from rural production spaces into consumption spaces, has a significant impact. This process is often regarded as urban residents moving to mountainous areas with the motivation to achieve a better and higher quality of life. This study focuses on lifestyle mobility as an important factor in the spatial and economic transformation of the Central Taurus Mountains. Information was gathered from 91 individuals as part of the study, employing both quantitative and qualitative research methods. One of the most significant findings from the research is related to the individuals living in mountainous areas who maintain their connections with the city while transforming these areas with urban consciousness. As a result, the real estate and construction sectors experience increased activity, leading to increased pressure on infrastructure. Seasonal mobility toward mountainous areas by middle-aged and retired urban residents, based on historical practices, is expected to continue to grow in the future.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Lifestyle mobility, mountainous areas, spatial transformation, economic transformation, Central Taurus Mountains

Kaynakça

• 1. Arnesen, T., Overvåg, K., Skjeggedal, T. & Ericsson, B. (2012). Transcending orthodoxy: Leisure and the transformation of core – periphery relations. Danson, M. & de Souza, P. (Eds.) içinde, Regional development in Northern Europe. Peripherality, marginality and border issues in Northern Europe, regions and cities, 182–195. Abingdon: Routledge.
• 2. Atalay, İ., Efe, R. & Öztürk, M. (2014). Effects of topography and climate on the ecology of Taurus mountains in the mediterranean region of Turkey. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 120 (2014), 142-156.
• 3. Bakır, İ. (1995). Batı toroslarda göçerlerin yerleşme ve mekan sorunlarının çözümü üzerine bir deneme, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Mimarlık Anabilim Dalı, Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, Konya.
• 4. Bartoš, M., Kušová, D. & Těšitel, J. (2009). Motivation and life style of the Czech amenity migrants. European Countryside, 1(3), 164–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10091-009-0014-4.
• 5. Benson, M. C. (2007). There's' more'to life: British migration to rural France, Doctoral dissertation, University of Hull.
• 6. Benson, M. & O'reilly, K. (2009). M-Migration and the search for a better way of life: A critical exploration of lifestyle migration. The Sociological Review, 57(4), 608- 625.
• 7. Beyaz, C. (2019) Kırsal göçmenin kimlik, aidiyet ve bağlılık mücadelesi: Rizeli göçmenler üzerine bir çalışma, Doktora Tezi, Ankara, 2019.
• 8. Bijker, R.A., Haartsen, T. & Strijker, D. (2012). Migration to less-popular rural areas in the netherlands: Exploring the motivations, Journal of Rural Studies, 28 (2012), 490-498.
• 9. Casado-Diaz, M. (2012) Exploring the geographies of lifestyle mobility: Current and future fields of enquiry. Wilson, J., (Eds) içinde, Handbook of Tourism Geographies, Routledge,120-125.
• 10. Cohen, S. A., Duncan, T. & Thulemark, M. (2015). Lifestyle mobilities: The crossroads of travel, leisure and migration. Mobilities, 10(1), 155–172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2013.826481.
• 11. Dahms, F.& McComb, J. (1999). Counterurbanization’, interaction and functional cahenge in a rural amenity area-a Canadian example. Journal of Rural Studies, Vol 15. No 2, pp. 129-146.
• 12. Daskiran, I., Savas, T., Koyuncu, M., Koluman, N., Keskin, M., Esenbuga, N. & Kosum, N. (2018). Goat production systems of Turkey: Nomadic to industrial. Small Ruminant Research, 163, 15-20.
• 13. Davran, M.K., Ocak, S. &Secer, A. (2009). An analysis of socio-economic and environmental sustainability of goat production in the Taurus Mountain villages in The Eastern Mediterranean region of Turkey, With Consideration of Gender Roles. Trop Anim Health Prod, 2009, 41:1151-1155.
• 14. Geray, U. & Özden, S. (2003). Silvopastoralism in Turkey's Mountainous Mediterranean Region. Mountain Research and Development, 23(2), 128-131.
• 15. Glorioso, R. (2006). A bioregion in jeopardy: the strategic challenge of amenity migration in Baguio, the Philippines. Moss, L., (Eds), içinde The Amenity Migrants And Sustaining Mountains And Their Culture (pp. 261–277). Wallingford: CABI. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851990842.0261.
• 16. Haller, A. & Branca, D. (2022). Urbanization and the verticality of rural–urban linkages in mountains. Sarmiento, F. O. (Eds) içinde, Montology Palimpsest. Cham: Springer.
• 17. Hilti, N. (2009). Here, there and in-between. On the interplay of multilocal living, space and inequality. Bergman, M., Ohnmacht, T. & Maksim, H., (Eds), Mobilities and Inequality (pp. 145– 164). Aldershot: Ashgate. 18. Janoschka, M. & Haas, H. (2014). Contested spatialities, lifestyle migration and residential tourism. London: Routledge.
• 19. Kantar, M. (1996). Adana ve İçel dağ köylerinde yaşayan kırsal kadınların toplumsal yaşamdaki rolleri ve bu rollerle ilgili geleceğe yönelik beklentileri, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Tarım Ekonomisi Anabilim Dalı, Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Adana.
• 20. Kaplan, A. & Ardahan, F. (2013). Doğa sporları yapan bireylerin profilleri, doğa sporu yapma nedenleri ve elde ettikleri faydalar: Antalya örneği. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(8), 93-114. Retrieved from http://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ksbd/issue/16223/169908.
• 21. Löffler, R. & Steinickie, E. (2006). Counterurbanization And its socioeconomic effets in high mountain areas of the Sierra Nevada (California/Nevada). Mountain Research and Development, 26:1, 64-71.
• 22. Marchant, C. & Rojas, F. (2015). Local transformations and new economic functionalities generated by amenity migration in Northern Chilean Patagonia. Exploring Malalcahuello, a Small Mountain Village. Journal of Alpine Research, Revue de géographie alpine, 103(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/rga.2988.
• 23. McMillan, L. (2006). Guiding Back From The Precipice: Leveraging The Power Of Recreational Users To Protect Mountain Environments. Lawrence Moss. (Eds) içinde, The amenity migrants: Seeking and sustaining mountains and their cultures. 31-53. Wallingford, CABI.
• 24. Moss, L.A.G., (2006). ed. The amenity migrants: Seeking and sustaining mountains and their cultures, Wallingford, CABI.
• 25. Nelson, P.B. (2006). Geographic perspectives on amenity migration across the United States: National, regional, and local perspectives, Lawrence Moss. (Eds) içinde, The amenity migrants: Seeking and sustaining mountains and their cultures. Wallingford, CABI.
• 26. Ooi, N., Laing, J. & Mair, J. (2015). Sociocultural change facing in the rocky mountain west as a result of mountain resort tourism and amenity migration, Journal of Rural Studies, 41 (2015), 59-71.
• 27. Otero, A., & González, R. (2011, March). The role of the state facing amenity/lifestyle mobility processes in Argentina. In Documento de trabajo presentado en el 2nd International Workshop: Lifestyle Migration and Residential Tourism. Madrid: CSIC (pp. 23-25).
• 28. Perlik, M. (2011). Alpine gantrification: Lorsque le village de montagne devient un arrondissement métropolitain/Alpine gentrification: The mountain village as a metropolitan neighbourhood. Revue de géographie alpine, 99(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/rga.1370.
• 29. Perlik, M. (2019). The spatial and economic transformation of mountain regions: Landscapes as commodities. London: Routledge.
• 30. Phillips, M. (1993). Rural gentrification and the processes of class colonization. Journal of Rural Studies, 9(2), 123–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0743-0167(93)90026-G.
• 31. Rasker, R. & Hansen, A.J. (2000). Natural amenities and population growth in The Greater Yellowstone Region. Human Ecology Review, 7(2):30-40.
• 32. Schier, M. (2020). Multilokales familienleben nach trennung und scheidung. Danielzyk, R., Dittrich-Wesbuer, A., Hilti, N. & Tippel, C., (Eds) içinde, Multilokale Lebensführungen und räumliche Entwicklungen – ein Kompendium (pp. 299–307). Hannover: Akademie für Raumentwicklung.
• 33. Shumway, J. M. & Otterstrom, S. M. (2001). Spatial patterns of migration and income change in the Mountain West: the dominance of service‐based, amenity‐rich counties. The Professional Geographer, 53(4), 492-502.
• 34. Smith, N. (2008/1984). Uneven development: Nature, capital and the production of space, 3rd ed. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
• 35. Somuncu, M. (2005). Aladağlar: Yaylacılık ve dağ göçebeliği konusunda bir araştırma. Gündüz Eğitim ve Yayıncılık.
• 36. Somuncu, M., Akpınar, N., Kurum, E., Kaya, N. Ç. & Eceral, T. Ö. (2010). Gümüşhane İli yaylalarındaki arazi kullanımı ve islev değisiminin değerlendirilmesi: Kazıkbeli ve Alistire yaylaları örneği. Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi, 2(2), 107-127.
• 37. Somuncu, M. (2016). Tourism and the commodification of cultural heritage in the Eastern Black Sea Mountains, Turkey. Koulov, B. & Zhelezov, G., (Eds.) içinde, Sustainable Mountain Regions: Challenges and Perspectives in Southeastern Europe (pp. 243–255). London-New York: Springer.
• 38. Südaş, İ. & Mutluer, M. (2010). Daha iyi bir hayata doğru: Yaşam biçimi göçü, Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 19(1), İzmir, 2010, s. 31-47.
• 39. Van Auken, P.M. & Rye, J.F. (2011). Amenities, affluence and ideology: Comparing rural restructuring process in the US and Norway. Landscape Research, 36:1, 63-84.
• 40. Wang, Y., Wu, N., Kunze, C., Long, R. & Perlik, M. (2019). Drivers of change to mountain sustainability in the Hindu Kush Himalaya. Wester, P., Mishra, A., Mukherji, A. & Shrestha, A. B., (Eds.) içinde, The Hindu Kush Himalaya assessment – mountains, climate change, sustainability and people (pp. 17–56). Cham: Springer Nature. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92288-1_2
• 41. Williams, D. R. & Kaltenborn, B. P. (1999). Leisure places and modernity: The use and meaning of recreational cottages in Norway and the USA. Crouch, D., (Eds.) içinde, Leisure/tourism geographies: practices and geographical knowledge (pp. 214–230). London: Routledge.
• 42. Zoğal, V., & Emekli, G. (2020). The changing meanings of second homes during Covid-19 Pandemic in Turkey. International Journal of Geography and Geography Education (IGGE), 42, 168-181.