Accommodation-Purposed Function Changes in Traditional Structures: The Case of Safranbolu Old Bazaar District

Öz

This paper aims to evaluate the relationship between the development of tourism and sustainable urban conservation. This evaluation has focused on structures that have been preserved through registration. Within the traditional urban fabric of Safranbolu, 826 registered structures have been classified according to their type of utilization. The current condition of these structures along with their various treatments, land surveys and official registration documents have been analyzed. Thus, the accommodation-purposed structures used for tourism have been compared and evaluated against the current condition of other structures in terms of their modification/authenticity and their project situations. As a result, accommodation-purposed usage has been identified as one of the most significant factors in physically conserving the structures. However, along with the opportunities tourism supplies in conserving the structures physically, the risks it bears in completely changing the existing social/economic situation of the traditional urban fabric, conserving the traditional urban fabric and sustaining tourism in the long run have all been considered and evaluated.

Keywords:Safranbolu; urban conservation; sustainable tourism.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Safranbolu; urban conservation; sustainable tourism

GELENEKSEL YAPILARDA KONAKLAMA AMAÇLI FONKSİYON DEĞİŞİKLİKLERİ: SAFRANBOLU ESKİ ÇARŞI ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Bu makalenin amacı turizmin gelişimi ile sürdürülebilir kentsel koruma arasındaki ilişkinin değerlendirilmesidir. Bu değerlendirme tescillenerek koruma altına alınan yapılar üzerinden yapılmıştır. Safranbolu geleneksel kent dokusu içinde, belirlenen alanda bulunan 826 tescilli yapı, kullanım türlerine göre sınıflanmıştır. Bu yapıların mevcut durumu ile geçmişten bu güne kadar görmüş olduğu uygulamalar arazi çalışmaları ve bu yapılara ilişkin kurum kayıtları dökülerek incelenmiştir. Böylece turizme yönelik olarak konaklama amaçlı kullanılan yapılar ile diğer yapıların mevcut durumları, bozulmuşluk/özgünlük durumları, proje durumları karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuç olarak konaklama amaçlı kullanımın yapıların fiziksel olarak korunması açısından önemli faydalar sağladığı tespit edilmiştir. Ancak turizmin yapıların fiziksel olarak korunmasına yönelik sağladığı olanaklarla birlikte, geleneksel kent dokusunda var olan sosyal/ekonomik yapıyı tamamen dönüştürmesinin, geleneksel kent dokusunun korunması ve turizmin uzun vadede sürdürülebilirliği açısından sahip olduğu risklerde ele alınmış ve değerlendirilmiştir.

Anahtar kelimeler: Safranbolu; kentsel koruma; sürdürülebilir turizm.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Safranbolu; kentsel koruma; sürdürülebilir turizm

Kaynakça

1. Akama J.S., Ondimu K.I., 2001. “Tourism product development and the changing consumer demand: A case study of Kenya”, Asia Pasific Journal of Tourism Research, 6 (1), 56-62
2. Alzue A., O’Leary J., A.M. Morrison 1998. “Cultural and heritage tourism: identifying niches for international travelers”, The Journal of Travel and Tourism Studies, 9 (2), 2–13.
3. Beatley, T., Manning, K. 1997. The Ecology of Place: Planning for Environment, Economy and Community, Island Press, Washington, DC.
4. Bromley, R. D., Jones, G. A. 1995. “Conservation in Quito: policies and progress in the historic centre” Third World Planning Review, 17(1), 41-59.
5. Chen, F. 2011. “Traditional architectural forms in market oriented Chinese cities: Place for localities or symbol of culture?” Habitat International, 35(2), 410-418.
6. Dix, G. 1990. “Conservation and change in the city” Third World Planning Review, 12(4), 385-406.
7. Du Cros, H. 2001. “A new model to assist in planning for sustainable cultural heritage tourism” International Journal of Tourism Research, 3(2), 165-170.
8. Ecemiş Kılıç, S., Türkoğlu, G. 2015. “Özgün İşlevini Sürdüren Geleneksel Konutlarda Koruma Sorunları ve Çözüm Önerileri; Safranbolu Eski Çarşı Bölgesi”. Megaron, (10.5505/megaron.2015.51523).

9. European Commission 1999. ESDP European Spatial Development Perspective, Agreed at the Imformal Council of Ministers Responsible for Spatial Planning in Potsdam, Published by European Commission, Italy.
10. Fagance, M. 2003. Tourism and Local Society and Culture, Tourism and Host Communities, CABI Publishing, Oxford.
11. Günay, R. 1998. Türk Ev Geleneği ve Safranbolu Evleri. YEM Yayınevi. İstanbul:
12. Harrison, D., Hitchcock, M. (Eds.). 2005. The Politics of World Heritage: Negotiating Tourism and Conservation, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
13. Herbert, D. 2001. “Literary places, tourism and the heritage experience” Annals of Tourism Research, 28 (2), 312-333.
14. ICOMOS 1999. International Cultural Tourism Charter. ICOMOS, Paris. http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/tourism_e.pdf (accessed 11 February 2014)
15. Jimura, T. 2011. “The impact of world heritage site designation on local communities–A case study of Ogimachi, Shirakawa-mura, Japan” Tourism Management, 32(2), 288-296.
16. Koçan, N. 2012. “Safranbolu’da turizme yönelik uygulamalar” Fırat Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 24(2), 95-102
17. Li, M., Wu, B., Cai, L. 2008. “Tourism development of World Heritage Sites in China: A geographic perspective” Tourism Management, 29(2), 308-319.
18. McKercher, B., Ho, P. S., du Cros, H. 2005. “Relationship between tourism and cultural heritage management: Evidence from Hong Kong”. Tourism Management, 26(4), 539-548.
19. Mowforth, M., Munt, I. 2009. Tourism and sustainability: Development, globalization and new tourism in the third world. Routledge, New York.
20. Murtagh, W. J. 2006. Rehabilitation and adaptive use. Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, Canada
21. Nasser, N. 2003. “Planning for urban heritage places: reconciling conservation, tourism, and sustainable development”. Journal of Planning Literature, 17(4), 467-479.
22. Nuryanti, W. 1996. “Heritage and postmodern tourism”. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 249-260.
23. Orbaşlı, A. 2000. Tourists in Historic Towns: Urban Conservation and Heritage Management. Spon Press. London
24. Orbaşlı, A. “Tourism and the ‘Islamic’ town: Social change, conservation and tourism in traditional neighbourhoods”. In Tourism in the Middle East: Continuity, Change and Transformation, Daher R. (Editör) pp. 161–187. Channel View. Clevedon
25. Pearson M, Sullivan S. 1995. Looking After Heritage Places. The Basics of Heritage Planning for Managers, Landowners and Administrators. Melbourne University Press: Melbourne.
26. Pedersen, A. 2002. Managing tourism at world heritage sites. A practical manual for World Heritage site managers. ICOMOS.
27. Rodrigo-Cervantes N.E. 2006. Urban conservation in Mexican colonial cities: the historic centre of Morelia, Zetter R. (Ed.), Designing sustainable cities in the developing world, Ashgate, Abingdon, pp. 69–83
28. Shackley, M. (Ed.). 1998. Visitor management: case studies from world heritage sites. Routledge, Oxford.
29. Shin, H. B. 2010. “Urban conservation and revalorisation of dilapidated historic quarters: the case of Nanluoguxiang in Beijing”. Cities, 27: 43-S54.
30. Smith, M. 2002. “A critical evaluation of the global accolade: the significance of World Heritage Site status for Maritime Greenwich”. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 8 (2): 137-151.
31. Şeker, Z. D., Alkan, M., Büyüksalih, G., Kutoğlu, Ş.H., Kahya, Y., Akçın, H. 2011. Kültürel Mirasın Kaydı, Analizi, Korunması ve Yaşatılmasına Yönelik Bir Bilgi ve Yönetim Sisteminin Geliştirilmesi, Örnek Uygulama: Safranbolu Tarihi Kenti. TUBİTAK: Ankara
32. Teo, P., Huang, S. 1995. “Tourism and heritage conservation in Singapore” Annals of Tourism Research, 22(3), 589-615.
33. Tiesdel, S., Tener, O., Helth, T. 1998. Revitalizing Historic Urban Quarters, Great Britain: MPG Books
34. Timothy, D. J., Nyaupane, G. P. (Eds.). 2009. Cultural Heritage and Tourism in the Developing World: a Regional Perspective. Routledge, Oxon.
35. Tuan, T. H., Navrud, S. 2008. “Capturing the benefits of preserving cultural heritage” Journal of Cultural Heritage, 9 (3), 326-337.
36. Tunbridge, J. E. 1984. “Whose heritage to conserve? Cross cultural reflections upon political dominance and urban heritage conservation” Canadian Geographer, 28, 171-180.
37. Türker, N. 2013. “Host Community Perceptions of Tourism Impacts: A Case Study on the World Heritage City of Safranbolu, Turkey”. Revista de cercetare [i interven] ie social, 43, 115-141.
38. UNESCO. 1972. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Paris. http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/, (Son Erişim: 11 Şubat 2014)
39. Uysal, B., Kurt, Ş., Karaman, A.,Yıldırım, M. N. 2010. “Dating of Some Historical Safranbolu Houses With Dendrochronological Methods”.Technology, 13 (4), 201-218.
40. Urry, J. 1990. The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. Sage. London
41. Wang, H. J., Zeng, Z. T. 2010. “A multi-objective decision-making process for reuse selection of historic buildings”. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(2), 1241-1249.
42. World Tourism Organization. 1998. Guide for local authorities on developing sustainable tourism. World Tourism Organization. Madrid.
43. Yang, C. H., Lin, H. L., Han, C. C. 2010. “Analysis of international tourist arrivals in China: The role of World Heritage Sites” Tourism Management, 31(6), 827-837.
44. Yeoh, B. S., Huang, S. 1996. “The conservation-redevelopment dilemma in Singapore: the case of the Kampong Glam historic district” Cities, 13(6), 411-422.
45. Yıldırım, M., Turan, G. 2012. “Sustainable development in historic areas: Adaptive re-use challenges in traditional houses in Sanliurfa, Turkey”. Habitat International, 36(4), 493-503.
46. Yung, E. H., Chan, E. H. 2012. “Implementation challenges to the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: Towards the goals of sustainable, low carbon cities” Habitat International, 36(3), 352-361.
47. Yung, E. H., Langston, C., Chan, E. H. 2014. “Adaptive reuse of traditional Chinese shophouses in government-led urban renewal projects in Hong Kong” Cities, 39, 87-98.