SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İDEALKENT / 2026 / Sayı: 49

Neighborhood through the eyes of city residents: A comparison between individuals living alone and nuclear families

Kentlinin gözünden komşuluk: Yalnız yaşayan bireyler ve çekirdek aileler özelinde bir karşılaştırma

Fahri Çakı(BALIKESİR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, FEN-EDEBİYAT FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-8895-2297
Nur Neşe Şahin(YALOVA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ARMUTLU MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0003-0360-9631
Journal
İDEALKENT
Pages
96–128
Publication Date
2025-11-07
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings related to each theme were analyzed and comparisons were made in two general categories as “participants living alone” and “participants living as a family.” The main conclusion reached in the research is that no serious difference was observed between individuals living alone and individuals living as a family within the framework of the specified themes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the post-modern era, cities by altering emotional and thought patterns have emerged as a compelling force, reshaping habits and behavior.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Understanding the complexity of lifestyle and societal relationships in cities becomes crucial for comprehending the direction of urban development and urban communication evolution.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings related to each theme were analyzed and comparisons were made in two general categories as “participants living alone” and “participants living as a family.” The main conclusion reached in the research is that no serious difference was observed between individuals living alone and individuals living as a family within the framework of the specified themes.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Komşuluk · Kentleşme · Post-modern Toplum

Abstract

In the post-modern era, cities by altering emotional and thought patterns have emerged as a compelling force, reshaping habits and behavior. Understanding the complexity of lifestyle and societal relationships in cities becomes crucial for comprehending the direction of urban development and urban communication evolution. This study aims to understand the social relationships of individuals living alone and nuclear families, and to examine the approach to the phenomenon of neighborliness and the experiences of neighborliness. In the central district of Balıkesir Karesi, individuals classified sociologically as living alone and constituting families (a specified number) were included in the study using the snowball sampling method. Through a semi-structured interview form prepared based on information obtained from the literature, in-depth interviews were conducted. The research findings were presented and discussed within the framework of the themes of; a) general view of the neighborhood, b) participation in neighborhood activities, c) communication and interaction with neighbors, d) neighborhood and social status. The findings related to each theme were analyzed and comparisons were made in two general categories as “participants living alone” and “participants living as a family.” The main conclusion reached in the research is that no serious difference was observed between individuals living alone and individuals living as a family within the framework of the specified themes.

Özet

Post-modern dönemde kentler, duygu ve düşünce kalıplarını değiştirerek, alışkanlık ve davranış biçimlerini dönüştürerek büyük bir toplumsal etki yaratmaktadır. Kentlerdeki yaşam biçimlerinin ve toplumsal ilişkilerin karmaşıklığını anlamak, kent gelişiminin ve kentsel iletişimin evrimini anlamak açısından önemli bir faktördür ve komşuluk ilişkilerini incelemek buna izin verebilecek bir yol olarak görülmektedir. Bu bağlamda yapılan bu çalışma, yalnız yaşayan bireyler ve çekirdek ailelerin toplumsal ilişkilerini anlamak, komşuluk olgusuna yaklaşımını ve komşuluk deneyimlerini incelemek amacını taşımaktadır. Çalışma içerisinde kartopu örneklem yöntemi kullanılarak Balıkesir Karesi il merkezinde yalnız yaşayan ve çekirdek aile olarak ikamet eden 25 kişi çalışmaya dâhil edilmiştir. Literatürden elde edilen bilgiler ışığında hazırlanan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu aracılığıyla, derinlemesine görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Araştırma bulguları; a) komşuluğa genel bakış, b) komşuluk faaliyetlerine katılım, c) komşularla iletişim ve etkileşim, d) komşuluk ve toplumsal statü temaları çerçevesinde sunulmuş ve tartışılmıştır. Her bir temaya ilişkin bulgular “yalnız yaşayan katılımcılar” ve “aile olarak yaşayan katılımcılar” olarak iki genel kategoride analiz edilmiş ve karşılaştırmalar yapılmıştır. Araştırmada ulaşılan ana sonuç, belirtilen temalar çerçevesinde yalnız yaşayan bireyler ile aile olarak yaşayan bireyler arasında ciddi bir fark görülmediği şeklinde tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çakı, F., Şahin, N. N. (2025). Neighborhood through the eyes of city residents: A comparison between individuals living alone and nuclear families. İDEALKENT, Sayı: 49, 96–128. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.1597522

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (48)

  1. Alver, K. (2012). Komşuluk. K. Alver (Ed.), Kent sosyolojisi (ss. 341–348). Hece Yayınları.
  2. Arslan, G., & Sev, A. (2014). Significant issues in and around high-rise residential environments. Re-Thinking Residential Environment, Environment and Design International Congress, Bahçeşehir University, İstanbul.
  3. Baudrillard, J. (1970). Tüketim toplumu (H. Deliceçaylı & F. Keskin, Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  4. Bauman, Z. (2001). Modernlik ve müphemlik (İ. Türkmen, Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  5. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (M. Ritter, Trans.). Sage.
  6. Blurton, H., & Houlik-Ritchey, E. (2020). Introduction: Neighbors, neighborhoods, neighboring. Exemplaria, 32(3), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10412573.2020.1855000
  7. Brown, J., & Smith, L. (2019). Neighbourhood watch programs: Community cooperation and crime reduction. Journal of Community Safety, 22(1), 45–67.
  8. Canım, R. (2008). Komşu komşunun külüne muhtaç: Atasözü ve deyimlerde kalan mahalleler. Türk Edebiyatı, 416, 36.
  9. Erder, S. (2021). İstanbul’da bir kent kondu: Ümraniye. İletişim Yayınları.
  10. Erkut, G. (1989). Yüksek binalar ve sosyal yaşamın yeniden organizasyonu. Yüksek Binalar I. Ulusal Sempozyumu, İTÜ, İstanbul.
  11. Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2125–2143. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980120087081
  12. Freiler, C. (2004). Why strong neighbourhoods matter: Implications for policy and practice. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.438.9399&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  13. Fukuyama, F., & Takeda, Y. (2018). Community policing and public safety in Japan. Asian Journal of Law & Society, 7(4), 321–338.
  14. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernliğin sonuçları (E. Kuşdil, Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  15. Gölçük, M. (2007). Kentleşme sürecinde akrabalık ve komşuluk kültürü: Afyonkarahisar örneği [Yüksek lisans tezi, Afyonkarahisar Üniversitesi]. Afyonkarahisar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  16. Grannis, R. (2009). From the ground up: Translating geography into community through neighborhood networks. Princeton University Press.
  17. Greenberg, M., Rohe, W., & Williams, J. (1985). Safe and secure neighborhoods: Physical characteristics and informal territorial control in high and low crime neighborhoods. Population and Environment, 8(2), 83–103.
  18. Guest, A. M., & Wierzbicki, S. K. (1999). Social ties at the neighborhood level: Two decades of GSS evidence. Urban Affairs Review, 35(1), 92–111.
  19. Hall, S. (1996). Kültürel kimlikler ve diaspora. S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Kimlik: Kültürel kimliğin oluşumu (ss. 223–251). Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  20. Heelas, P. (1996). The New Age movement: The celebration of the self and the sacralization of modernity. Blackwell.
  21. Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1435–1446.
  22. Işık, O., & Pınarcıoğlu, M. (2001). Nöbetleşe yoksulluk: Gecekondulaşma ve kent yoksulları: Sultanbeyli örneği. İletişim Yayınları.
  23. Jones, T., & Clarke, P. (2020). The impact of citizen patrols on crime rates: A longitudinal study. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 32(5), 290–315.
  24. Kılıç, S. (2022). Osmanlı komşuluk hukuku [Yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi]. Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  25. Klinenberg, E. (2012). Going solo: The extraordinary rise and surprising appeal of living alone. Penguin Books.
  26. Koyuncu, A. (2005). Konya’da komşuluk ilişkileri [Yüksek lisans tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi]. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  27. Koyuncu, A. (2013). Gündelik hayatta komşuluk. Sosyoloji Divanı, 2, 9–21.
  28. Koyuncu, A. (2014). Komşuluk kültürü. Hece Yayınları.
  29. Kuş, E. (2003). Nicel-nitel araştırma teknikleri: Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma teknikleri: Nicel mi, nitel mi? Anı Yayıncılık.
  30. Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001
  31. Lyotard, J.-F. (1979). Postmodern durum (A. Bilge, Çev.). Vadi Yayınları.
  32. McDonough, S. (2017). Being a neighbor: Ideas and ideals of neighborliness in the medieval West. History Compass, 15(9), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/hic3.12406
  33. Meegan, R., & Mitchell, A. (2001). It’s not community round here, it’s neighbourhood: Neighbourhood change and cohesion in urban regeneration policies. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2167–2194.
  34. Nirun, N. (1991). Sistematik sosyoloji yönünden sosyal dinamik bünye analizi. Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Yayınları.
  35. Oshio, T. (2016). Which is more relevant for perceived happiness, individual-level or area-level social capital? A multilevel mediation analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9752-y
  36. Powdthavee, N. (2008). Putting a price tag on friends, relatives, and neighbours: Using surveys of life satisfaction to value social relationships. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(4), 1459–1480.
  37. Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The American Prospect, 13, 35–42.
  38. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
  39. Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 633–660. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657367
  40. Sennett, R. (1992). The fall of public man. W. W. Norton.
  41. Shields, M. A., Price, S. W., & Wooden, M. (2009). Life satisfaction and the economic and social characteristics of neighbourhoods. Journal of Population Economics, 22(2), 421–443.
  42. Taylor, C. (1989). The sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press.
  43. Toya, H., & Skidmore, M. (2013). Natural disaster impacts and fiscal decentralization. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6350227.pdf
  44. Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1985). The importance of neighbors: The social, cognitive, and affective components of neighboring. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(2), 139–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00905726
  45. Urry, J. (2012). Sociology beyond societies: Mobilities for the twenty-first century. Routledge.
  46. van der Meer, T., & Tolsma, J. (2014). Ethnic diversity and its effects on social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 459–478. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309
  47. Völker, B., Flap, H., & Lindenberg, S. (2007). When are neighbourhoods communities? Community in Dutch neighbourhoods. European Sociological Review, 23(1), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcl022
  48. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2000). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (2. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.