Evaluation of Urban Renewal Practices in Traditional Settlement Structures in the Context of Sustainability: The Case of Alipaşa-Lalebey Neighborhood

Öz

Climate change, drought, floods, and other natural disasters are frequently encountered problems for cities in the 21st century. Today, urban sustainability is an essential resource for achieving sustainable development goals. In this context, many countries worldwide have started taking measures through of urban sustainability indicators to withstand environmental disasters and hazards. From a broad perspective, the vulnerability of cities to disasters has been identified in social, environmental, and economic dimensions, and solutions have been aimed at addressing these issues. In this context, within the scope of the study, urban renewal projects implemented in the Alipaşa-Lalebey Neighborhood, located in the historic Walled City of Diyarbakır, were compared with the old city fabric and evaluated by means of environmental, economic, and social sustainability indicators. Literature review, GIS (Geographic Information System), field study, and in-depth interviews were used as methods in the study. The Conservation Development Plan and Urban Renewal Projects of the old-new settlement pattern were mapped using the ArcMap program and then evaluated within the framework of social, environmental, and economic sustainability indicators. As a result of the study, it was concluded that the new housing texture in the urban renewal project implemented in the Alipaşa-Lalebey Neighborhood does not make comprehensive reference to the traditional texture. Changing the street texture, spatial changes in building blocks, parcel-building typologies, and non-use of traditional construction techniques and materials are environmental and social consequences that prevent the preservation of cultural heritage and social memory. The ineffective use of local resources and the decreased need for traditional professions have led to the failure to implement economic sustainability indicators. The absence of resources in the literature that discuss urban renewal project applications in a traditional historical context in the context of social, economic, and environmental sustainability indicators reveals the unique value of the study. This research aims to guide future urban renewal projects in historical contexts in hot-arid climate regions by comprehensively considering social, environmental, and economic urban sustainability principles to contribute to the creation of more effective and sustainable cities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Urban Sustainability
• Traditional Urban Texture
• Sustainability Indicators
• Suriçi
• Urban Renewal Project

Geleneksel Yerleşim Dokularındaki Kentsel Yenileme Uygulamalarının Sürdürülebilirlik Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi: Alipaşa-Lalebey Mahallesi Örneği

Öz

İklim değişikliği, kuraklık, sel gibi doğal afetler 21.yy’da kentlerin sık olarak karşılaştığı problemler arasında gösterilmektedir. Kentsel sürdürülebilirlik konusu günümüzde sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedeflerine ulaşmak için önemli bir kaynak olarak gösterilmektedir. Bu bağlamda dünya üzerindeki birçok ülke çevresel felaketlere ve tehlikelere karşı koymak amacıyla kentsel sürdürülebilirlik göstergeleri çerçevesinde önlem almaya başlamıştır. Geniş perpektifte sosyal, çevresel ve ekonomik ölçekte kentlerin afetlere karşı kırılgan özellikleri belirlenmiş ve problemlere çözümler getirilmesi hedeflenmiştir. Bu bağlamda çalışma kapsamıda Diyarbakır Tarihi Suriçi kent dokusunda yer alan Alipaşa-Lalebey Mahallesinde uygulanmış olan kentsel yenileme projeleri eski kent dokusuyla karşılaştırılarak çevresel, ekonomik ve sosyal sürdürülebilirlik göstergeleri çerçevesinde değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmada literatür taraması, GIS (Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemi), alan çalışması ve derinlemesine görüşmeler yöntem olarak kullanılmıştır. Eski-yeni yerleşim dokusuna ait Koruma Amaçlı İmar Planı ile Kentsel Yenileme Projeleri ArcMap programı kullanılarak haritalandırılmış daha sonra da sosyal, çevresel ve ekonomik sürdürülebilirlik göstergeleri çerçevesinde değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda Alipaşa-Lalebey Mahallesinde uygulanan kentsel yenileme projesinde yeni konut dokusunun geleneksel dokuya kapsamlı şekilde referans vermediği sonucuna varılmıştır. Sokak dokusunun değiştirilmesi, yapı adası, parsel-yapı tipolojilerindeki mekânsal değişimler, geleneksel yapım teknikleri ve malzemenin kullanılmaması kültürel mirasın ve toplumsal hafızanın korunmasının önüne geçen çevresel ve sosyal sonuçlar olarak karşımızda çıkmaktadır. Yerel kaynakların etkin şekilde kullanılmaması ve geleneksel meslek kollarına olan ihtiyacın azalması ekonomik sürdürülebilirlik göstergelerinin uygulanmamasına yol açmıştır. Literatürde geleneksel tarihi bir dokuda gerçekleşen kentsel yenileme proje uygulamalarını sosyal, ekonomik ve çevresel sürdürülebilirlik göstergeleri bağlamında ele alan kaynakların bulunmaması çalışmanın özgün değerini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışma, gelecekte sıcak-kuru iklim bölgelerinde tarihi dokuda planlanacak olan kentsel yenileme projelerinde, sosyal, çevresel ve ekonomik kentsel sürdürülebilirlik prensiplerini bütüncül şekilde alarak daha etkili sürdürülebilir kentlerin oluşmasına rehberlik etmeyi hedeflemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kentsel Sürdürülebilirlik
• Geleneksel Doku
• Sürdürülebilirlik Göstergeleri
• Suriçi
• Kentsel Yenileme Projesi

Kaynakça

1. Abu-Rayash, A., & Dincer, I. (2021). Development of integrated sustainability performance indicators for better management of smart cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 67, 102704.
2. Ahmad, T., & Thaheem, M. J. (2017). Developing a residential building-related social sustainability assessment framework and its implications for BIM. Sustainable Cities and Society, 28, 1-15.
3. Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., & Airaksinen, M. (2017). What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities?. Cities, 60, 234-245.
4. Akin, C. T., & Koca, C. (2017). Modelling Transportation Axes in Suriçi,(Diyarbakir, Turkey) and Determining their Relationship to Social Areas Allocated for Public Use. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 16(2), 333-339.
5. Allen, B., Tamindael, L. E., Bickerton, S. H., & Cho, W. (2020). Does citizen coproduction lead to better urban services in smart cities projects? An empirical study on e-participation in a mobile big data platform. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101412.
6. Alyami, S. H., & Rezgui, Y. (2012). Sustainable building assessment tool development approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 5, 52-62.
7. Ameen, R. F. M., Mourshed, M., & Li, H. (2015). A critical review of environmental assessment tools for sustainable urban design. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 55, 110-125.
8. Anejionu, O. C., Thakuriah, P. V., McHugh, A., Sun, Y., McArthur, D., Mason, P., & Walpole, R. (2019). Spatial urban data system: A cloud-enabled big data infrastructure for social and economic urban analytics. Future generation computer systems, 98, 456-473.

9. Arto, I., Capellán-Pérez, I., Lago, R., Bueno, G., & Bermejo, R. (2016). The energy requirements of a developed world. Energy for Sustainable Development, 33, 1-13.
10. Aslan, M., & Dundar, M. (2022). Ecological and environmental effects of urban transformation: An example in Turkey. Heritage and Sustainable Development, 4(1), 77-86.
11. Ayçam, İ., Akalp, S., & Görgülü, L. S. (2020). The application of courtyard and settlement layouts of the traditional Diyarbakır houses to contemporary houses: A case study on the analysis of energy performance. Energies, 13(3), 587.
12. Bekleyen, A. (2019). Geleneksel Konut Mimarisindeki Avlulu Mekân Örgütlenmesinin Günümüzdeki Yorumları. TÜBAV Bilim Dergisi, 12(1), 1-13
13. Bell, S., & Morse, S. (Eds.). (2018). Routledge handbook of sustainability indicators. Routledge.
14. Berardi, U. (2013). Sustainability assessment of urban communities through rating systems. Environment, development and sustainability, 15(6), 1573-1591.
15. Bernardi, E., Carlucci, S., Cornaro, C., & Bohne, R. A. (2017). An analysis of the most adopted rating systems for assessing the environmental impact of buildings. Sustainability, 9(7), 1226.
16. Bibri, S. E. (2018). The IoT for smart sustainable cities of the future: An analytical framework for sensor-based big data applications for environmental sustainability. Sustainable cities and society, 38, 230-253.
17. Bibri, S. E. (2020). Advances in the leading paradigms of urbanism and their amalgamation: compact cities, eco–cities, and data–driven smart cities. Springer Nature.
18. Bibri, S. E. (2020). Compact urbanism and the synergic potential of its integration with data-driven smart urbanism: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Land Use Policy, 97, 104703.
19. Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017). Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustainable cities and society, 31, 183-212.
20. Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2019). A scholarly backcasting approach to a novel model for smart sustainable cities of the future: Strategic problem orientation. City, Territory and Architecture, 6, 1-27.
21. Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2020). Smart eco-city strategies and solutions for sustainability: The cases of Royal Seaport, Stockholm, and Western Harbor, Malmö, Sweden. Urban Science, 4(1), 11
22. Bibri, S. E., Krogstie, J., & Kärrholm, M. (2020). Compact city planning and development: Emerging practices and strategies for achieving the goals of sustainability. Developments in the built environment, 4, 100021.
23. Birnur, K. Ö. S. E., & DÖNMEZ, Y. (2021). Mahalle Ölçeğinde Kültürel Değerlerin Kent Kimliğine Etkileri: Kale Mahallesi-Samsun. Kent Akademisi, 14(4), 1156-1190.
24. Boussaa, D. (2017). Urban regeneration and the search for identity in historic cities. Sustainability, 10(1), 48.
25. Brandon, P. S., & Lombardi, P. (2010). Evaluating sustainable development in the built environment. John Wiley & Sons.
26. Burgess, R. The Compact City Debate: A Global Perspective. In Compact Cities: Sustainable Urban Forms for Developing Countries; Burgess, R., Jenks, M., Eds.; Spon Press: London, UK, 2000; pp. 9–24
27. Chavan, C. Y., & Chandar, S. (2022). Understanding the Sustainable Design Principles of Traditional Houses: The Case of Sawantwadi, Maharashtra, India.
28. Checker, M. (2011). Wiped out by the “greenwave”: Environmental gentrification and the paradoxical politics of urban sustainability. City & society, 23(2), 210-229.
29. Chen, J., Pellegrini, P., & Ma, G. (2021). Identifying resettlement communities’ urban regeneration opportunity through GIS-based spatial analysis in Suzhou Metropolitan Area. Urban Reg. Plan, 6, 146.
30. Chuang, W. C., Boone, C. G., Locke, D. H., Grove, J. M., Whitmer, A., Buckley, G., & Zhang, S. (2017). Tree canopy change and neighborhood stability: A comparative analysis of Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 27, 363-372.
31. Clune, W. H., & Zehnder, A. J. (2020). The evolution of sustainability models, from descriptive, to strategic, to the three pillars framework for applied solutions. Sustainability Science, 15, 1001-1006.
32. Cohen, M. (2017). A systematic review of urban sustainability assessment literature. Sustainability, 9(11), 2048.
33. Colantonio, A. (2009). Social sustainability: a review and critique of traditional versus emerging themes and assessment methods.
34. Cole, R. J. (2005). Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles. Building Research & Information, 33(5), 455-467.
35. Correia, M., Dipasquale, L., & Mecca, S. (2014). Versus: heritage for tomorrow: vernacular knowledge for sustainable architecture (p. 288). Firenze University Press.
36. Cucuzzella, C. (2011). Design thinking and the precautionary principle: development of a theoretical model complementing preventive judgment for design for sustainability enriched through a study of architectural competitions adopting LEED.
37. Da Costa, M. J. R. C., Roseta, F., da Costa, S. C., & Lages, J. P. (Eds.). (2017). Architectural Research Addressing Societal Challenges Volume 1: Proceedings of the EAAE ARCC 10th International Conference (EAAE ARCC 2016), 15-18 June 2016, Lisbon, Portugal. CRC Press.
38. Dağtekin, E., Kakdaş Ateş, D., & Oğur, D. (2018). Diyarbakır Sur İçinde Yeni Konut Tasarımı Yaklaşımları. Journal Of International Social Research, 11(56).
39. Darçın, P. (2020). Design Principles for Ventilation with Regenerative Results: Vernacular Diyarbakır Houses. Megaron, 15(4).
40. Dean, C. A., Fath, B. D., & Chen, B. (2014). Indicators for an expanded business operations model to evaluate eco-smart corporate communities. Ecological Indicators, 47, 137-148.
41. Demir, H. (2021). Dicle (On Gözlü) Köprüsü’nün somut ve somut olmayan miras olarak korunması. Milli Folklor, 17(132), 226-249.
42. Dempsey, N., & Jenks, M. (2010). The future of the compact city. Built Environment (1978-), 36(1), 116-121.
43. Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable development, 19(5), 289-300
44. Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M., Jato-Espino, D., & Castro-Fresno, D. (2018). Evaluation of LEED for neighbourhood development and envision rating frameworks for their implementation in poorer countries. Sustainability, 10(2), 492.
45. Ding, G. K. (2005). Developing a multicriteria approach for the measurement of sustainable performance. Building Research & Information, 33(1), 3-16.
46. Direk, Y. S. (2006). The Effect of Socio-Cultural Structure on Housing Formation: Diyarbakır Example. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 5(16), 105-113.Diyarbakır Governorship Publication: Diyarbakir, Turkey, 2011.
47. Doan, D. T., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Naismith, N., Zhang, T., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., & Tookey, J. (2017). A critical comparison of green building rating systems. Building and Environment, 123, 243-260.
48. Du, X., Zhou, J., & Xiao, C. (2024). Spatial effects and influencing factors of urban sustainable development: an analysis of urban agglomerations in China. Economic Analysis and Policy, 81, 556-575.
49. Eastaway, M. P., & Støa, E. (2004). Dimensions of housing and urban sustainability. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 1-5.
50. Eizenberg, E., & Jabareen, Y. (2017). Social sustainability: A new conceptual framework. Sustainability, 9(1), 68.
51. Erdemir, İ. (2014). Sıcak-kuru iklim bölgelerinde enerji korunumu-yerleşme dokusu-form etkileşimi: geleneksel Diyarbakır evleri örneği (Doctoral dissertation, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü).
52. Ergin, Ü. Ş., Suna, K., Yılmaz, M. Ö., & uysal, Ü. E. (2020). Evaluatıon of the Climate Comfort Satisfacton in Traditional Houses of Diyarbakır Suriçi Region. Online Journal of Art & Design, 8(4).
53. Ergöz Karahan, E., Göçer, Ö., Boyacıoğlu, D., & Shrestha, P. (2023). Measuring “sustainable development” in vernacular settlements: a case study Behramkale, Türkiye. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development.
54. European Environment Agency. (2023). Urban sustainability in Europe. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/sustainability-transitions/urbanenvironment/urban-sustainability-in-europe
55. Farouk, A. M., Yusof, L. M., Rahman, R. A., & Ismail, A. (2024). Sustainable Transportation Indicators for Urban Areas: A Systematic Review. In International Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction Management (pp. 549-558). Springer, Cham.
56. Fatourehchi, D., & Zarghami, E. (2020). Social sustainability assessment framework for managing sustainable construction in residential buildings. Journal of building engineering, 32, 101761.
57. Fidan, A. (2016). Kentsel Yaşamda Sürdürülebilirliğin İlkeleri. İstanbul Esenler Belediyesi Şehir Düşünce Merkezi. Şehir Yayınları. Yayın No:11
58. Finco, A., & Nijkamp, P. (2001). Pathways to urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 3(4), 289-302.
59. Gasparatos, A., & Scolobig, A. (2012). Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool. Ecological Economics, 80, 1-7.
60. Ghonimi, I. (2017a). the impacts of neighborhood land-use patterns on resident's satisfaction and perception to sustainable urban development: A comparison of four neighborhoods in greater cairo region - egypt. Journal of Engineering Sciences-Assiut University-Faculty of Engineering, 45(4)
61. Gibson, R. B. (2006). Beyond the pillars: sustainability assessment as a framework for effective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations in significant decision-making. Journal of environmental assessment policy and management, 8(03), 259-280.
62. Güler, T., Şahnagil, S., & Güler, H. (2016). Kent Kimliğinin Oluşturulmasında Kültürel Unsurların Önemi: Balıkesir Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Paradoks Ekonomi Sosyoloji ve Politika Dergisi.
63. H., & Garg, P. (2019). Urban sustainability assessment tools: A review. Journal of cleaner production, 210, 146-158.
64. Haapio, A. (2012). Towards sustainable urban communities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 32(1), 165-169.
65. Hák, T., Janoušková, S., & Moldan, B. (2016). Analýza Přístupů Municipalit k Plánování a Hodnocení Udržitelného Rozvoje. Charles University Environment Centre: Prague, Czech Republic, 96.
66. Haspolat, Y. K. (2014). Diyarbakır’ın Tarihi Evleri.
67. Haydarovich, B. M., Yarkulov, Z. R., & Mashrab, P. (2023). Main Characteristics of Geoinformation Technologies and Modern Gis. Web of Synergy: International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 2(2), 194-200.
68. Huang, B., & Wang, J. (2020). Big spatial data for urban and environmental sustainability. Geo-spatial Information Science, 23(2), 125-140.
69. Huovila, A., Bosch, P., & Airaksinen, M. (2019). Comparative analysis of standardized indicators for Smart sustainable cities: What indicators and standards to use and when?. Cities, 89, 141-153.
70. Ilieva, R. T., & McPhearson, T. (2018). Social-media data for urban sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 1(10), 553-565.
71. İpek, B. (2020). Reconstruction of demolished historical cities, Diyarbakır-Suriçi case study area. Master Thesis.
72. Jabareen, Y.R. Sustainable Urban Forms: Their Typologies, Models and Concepts. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2006, 26, 38–52.
73. James, P. (2014). Urban sustainability in theory and practice: circles of sustainability. Routledge.
74. Jenks, M., & Jones, C. (2009). Issues and concepts. In Dimensions of the sustainable city (pp. 1-19). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
75. Juaidi, A., AlFaris, F., Saeed, F., Salmeron-Manzano, E., & Manzano-Agugliaro, F. (2019). Urban design to achieving the sustainable energy of residential neighbourhoods in arid climate. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 135-152.
76. Kara, O. E. (2019). Kentsel dönüşümün makro form etkileri: Diyarbakır ili merkez sur ilçesi örneği (Master's thesis, Aksaray Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü).
77. Kaypak, Ş. (2010). Antakya'nın Kent Kimliği Açısından İrdelenmesi/Examınatıon Of Antakya In Terms Of Urban Identıty. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(14), 373-392.
78. Khatibi, M., Khaidzir, K. A. M., & Mahdzar, S. S. S. (2023). Measuring the sustainability of neighborhoods: A systematic literature review. Iscience.
79. Komeily, A., & Srinivasan, R. S. (2015). A need for balanced approach to neighborhood sustainability assessments: A critical review and analysis. Sustainable Cities and Society, 18, 32-43.
80. Kong, L., Liu, Z., & Wu, J. (2020). A systematic review of big data-based urban sustainability research: State-of-the-science and future directions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 273, 123142.
81. Korkma, M. (2016). Socio-economic dimensions of urban transformation (Diyarbakir sample). Master thesis.
82. Korkmaz, C., Arat, M. A., & Serdaroğlu Sağ, N. (2019). Kentsel Dönüşüm Projelerinde Sosyal Sürdürülebilirlik Performansının Değerlendirilmesi: Yeni Mamak Kentsel Dönüşüm ve Gelişim Projesi.
83. Kotharkar, R., Bahadure, P., & Sarda, N. (2014). Measuring compact urban form: A case of Nagpur City, India. Sustainability, 6(7), 4246-4272.
84. Kuloğlu Yüksel, F. Ş., & Karagüler, M. E. (2017). Experimental Research on Mechanical Properties of Self-Cleaning Concretes. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture Research, 4(4), 1990–1995.
85. Landorf, C. (2011). Evaluating social sustainability in historic urban environments. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 17(5), 463-477.
86. Lindkvist, C. M. (2018). Utopia for whom? Project and operational perspectives of energy efficient buidings. In Research Papers For the 17th EUROFM Research Symposium EFMC 2018, 5-8 June in Sofia Bulgaria, Tucker, M.(ed.). EuroFM.
87. Lynch, A. J., Andreason, S., Eisenman, T., Robinson, J., Steif, K., & Birch, E. L. (2011). Sustainable urban development indicators. Penn Institute for Urban Research, Philadelphia, PA.
88. Mangan, S. D., Oral, G. K., Sozen, I., & Kocagil, I. E. (2020). Evaluation of settlement textures in terms of building energy, economic performance, and outdoor thermal comfort. Sustainable Cities and Society, 56, 102110.
89. Martos, A., Pacheco-Torres, R., Ordóñez, J., & Jadraque-Gago, E. (2016). Towards successful environmental performance of sustainable cities: Intervening sectors. A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 57, 479-495.
90. Maurya, S. P., Singh, P. K., Ohri, A., & Singh, R. (2020). Identification of indicators for sustainable urban water development planning. Ecological Indicators, 108, 105691.
91. Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P. Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why? Urban Geogr. 2019, 40, 309–329.
92. Melikoğlu, Y., & Bekleyen, A. (2021). Şanlıurfa’nın Geleneksel Rüzgâr Yakalayıcıları: Kaybolan bir geleneğin günümüze kadar gelen örnekleri. El-Cezeri, 8(1), 268-286.
93. Michalina, D., Mederly, P., Diefenbacher, H., & Held, B. (2021). Sustainable urban development: A review of urban sustainability indicator frameworks. Sustainability, 13(16), 9348.
94. Mohamed, A. M. O., Paleologos, E. K., & Howari, F. (Eds.). (2020). Pollution assessment for sustainable practices in applied sciences and engineering. Butterworth-Heinemann.
95. Morelli, J. (2011). Environmental sustainability: A definition for environmental professionals. Journal of environmental sustainability, 1(1), 2.
96. Oğuz, G. P., & Halifeoğlu F. M. (2017). Geleneksel Diyarbakır Evlerinde yapım tekniği ve malzemede koruma sorunları. Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi, 8(2), 345-358.
97. Oliver, P. (2006). Built to meet needs: Cultural issues in vernacular architecture. Routledge.
98. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). Compact city policies: a comparative assessment. oecd.
99. Oruç, Ş. E. (2017). Diyarbakır Suriçi bölgesindeki geleneksel konut mimarisinde iklimsel faktörlerin rolü. Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi, 8(2), 383-394.
100. Pallathadka, A., Chang, H., & Ajibade, I. (2023). Urban sustainability implementation and indicators in the United States: A systematic review. City and Environment Interactions, 100108.
101. Pan, S. M., Armitage, N. P., & Van Ryneveld, M. B. (2015). Sustainable and equitable sanitation in informal settlements of Cape Town: a common vision?. Water SA, 41(2), 222-231.
102. Pandit, A., Minné, E. A., Li, F., Brown, H., Jeong, H., James, J. A. C., ... & Crittenden, J. C. (2017). Infrastructure ecology: an evolving paradigm for sustainable urban development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 163, S19-S27.
103. Park, J., Yoon, J., & Kim, K. H. (2017). Critical review of the material criteria of building sustainability assessment tools. Sustainability, 9(2), 186.
104. Raslanas, S., Stasiukynas, A., & Jurgelaitytė, E. (2013). Sustainability assessment studies of recreational buildings. Procedia Engineering, 57, 929-937.
105. Reed, M. S., Fraser, E. D., & Dougill, A. J. (2006). An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecological economics, 59(4), 406-418.
106. Reisi, M., Sabri, S., Agunbiade, M., Rajabifard, A., Chen, Y., Kalantari, M., ... & Li, Y. (2020). Transport sustainability indicators for an enhanced urban analytics data infrastructure. Sustainable Cities and Society, 59, 102095.
107. Russo, A., & Cirella, G. T. (2020). Urban sustainability: integrating ecology in city design and planning. In Sustainable Human–Nature Relations: Environmental Scholarship, Economic Evaluation, Urban Strategies (pp. 187-204). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
108. Sachs, I. (1999). Social sustainability and whole development: exploring the dimensions of sustainable development. Sustainability and the social sciences: a cross-disciplinary approach to integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation, 25-36.
109. Schwegler, C. (2015). Understanding urban sustainability through newspaper discourse: a look at Germany. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 5, 11-20.
110. Sharifi, A. (2021). Urban sustainability assessment: An overview and bibliometric analysis. Ecological Indicators, 121, 107102.
111. Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2013). Changes in the traditional urban form and the social sustainability of contemporary cities: A case study of Iranian cities. Habitat International, 38, 126-134.
112. Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2014). Neighborhood sustainability assessment in action: Cross-evaluation of three assessment systems and their cases from the US, the UK, and Japan. Building and Environment, 72, 243-258.
113. Song, Y., Knaap, G., 2004. Measuring urban form. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 70 (2), 210–225, 1387–3679.
114. Soyukaya, N. (2015). Diyarbakır Kalesi ve Hevsel Bahçeleri Kültürel Peyzajı Yönetim Planı. L’Hevsel à Amida-Diyarbakır: Études et Réhabilitation de Jardins Mésopotamiens. Istanbul: Institut Français D’études Anatoliennes.
115. Sun, X., Liu, X., Li, F., Tao, Y., & Song, Y. (2017). Comprehensive evaluation of different scale cities' sustainable development for economy, society, and ecological infrastructure in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 163, S329-S337.
116. Svarstad, H., Sletten, A., Paloniemi, R., Barton, D. N., & Grieg-Gran, M. (2010). Three types of environmental justice. Torgarden: Policymix.
117. Tanguay, G. A., Rajaonson, J., Lefebvre, J. F., & Lanoie, P. (2010). Measuring the sustainability of cities: An analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecological indicators, 10(2), 407-418.
118. Tekeli, İ. (1991). Kent planlaması konuşmaları. TMMOB Mimarlar Odası.
119. Thomas, R. (2003). Sustainable urban design: an environmental approach. (No Title).
120. Tuncer, O. C. (1999). Diyarbakır houses. Diyarbakır Metropolitan Municipality Culture and Art Publication, Diyarbakır [in Turkish], 7-571.
121. Turkish State Meteorological Service (2022).
122. United Nations, 2015. World urbanization prospects. The 2014 revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Publications /Files/WUP2014-Report.pdf. (Accessed 22 January 2017).
123. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019; p. 39
124. Verma, P., & Raghubanshi, A. S. (2018). Urban sustainability indicators: Challenges and opportunities. Ecological indicators, 93, 282-291
125. Weingaertner, C., & Moberg, Å. (2014). Exploring social sustainability: Learning from perspectives on urban development and companies and products. Sustainable development, 22(2), 122-133.
126. Xia, B., Chen, Q., Skitmore, M., Zuo, J., & Li, M. (2015). Comparison of sustainable community rating tools in Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, 84-91.
127. Yakut, M. E., & Ceylan, M. A. (2019). A Geographıc view on the effects of Diyarbakır Suriçi urban transformatıon project on population and settlement. Journal Of International Social Research, 12(63).
128. Yang, Jun, et al. "Influence of urban morphological characteristics on thermal environment." Sustainable Cities and Society 72 (2021): 103045.
129. Yıldırım, M., & Kiasif, G. Ç. (2023). Kentsel Dönüşümün Tarihi Yapılar Üzerinde Etkisinin İncelenmesi: Diyarbakır Suriçi Örneği. Mimarlık, Planlama Ve Tasarım Alanında Uluslararası Araştırmalar Iıı, 75.
130. Yılmaz, E., & Çiçek, İ. (2018). Detailed Köppen-Geiger climate regions of Turkey Türkiye’nin detaylandırılmış Köppen-Geiger iklim bölgeleri. Journal of Human Sciences, 15(1), 225-242.
131. Zeng, X., Yu, Y., Yang, S., Lv, Y., & Sarker, M. N. I. (2022). Urban resilience for urban sustainability: Concepts, dimensions, and perspectives. Sustainability, 14(5), 2481.
132. Zhang, D., Pan, S. L., Yu, J., & Liu, W. (2022). Orchestrating big data analytics capability for sustainability: A study of air pollution management in China. Information & Management, 59(5), 103231.
133. Zümrüt, M. S. (2021). Diyarbakır’da Son Yüzyılda Yok Olan Mesleklere Bir Bakış. Kesit Akademi Dergisi, 7(27), 453-472.