Journals / İDEALKENT / 2026 / Cilt: 17 Sayı: 47

An Empirical Investigation on Household-Housing Mismatch: The Turkish Case

Hane-Konut Eşleşmesindeki Uyumsuzluklar Üzerine Ampirik Bir İnceleme: Türkiye Örneği

Esma Aksoy Khurami(MUĞLA SITKI KOÇMAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5931-5547
Özgül Burcu Özdemir Sarı(ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3745-1740
Journal
İDEALKENT
Pages
8–30
Publication Date
2025-04-10
🏛️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)

In line with these findings, it was concluded that a housing occupancy standard specific to Türkiye is needed, local norms and sub-markets have to be considered in the development of this standard, and there are some households to be given priority by housing policies to reduce the mismatch.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates household-dwelling mismatch in Türkiye, focusing on overcrowding and underoccupation as key issues.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Occupation density was assessed with the Eurostat method and British room standards, employing raw data from the Income and Living Conditions Survey (2021).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In line with these findings, it was concluded that a housing occupancy standard specific to Türkiye is needed, local norms and sub-markets have to be considered in the development of this standard, and there are some households to be given priority by housing policies to reduce the mismatch.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:konut kullanım yoğunluğu · aşırı kalabalıklık · düşük kullanım yoğunluğu

Abstract

This study investigates household-dwelling mismatch in Türkiye, focusing on overcrowding and underoccupation as key issues. In many countries, household-dwelling mismatch is evaluated with housing occupancy standards. However, the absence of such standards in Türkiye hinders the investigation and monitoring of occupation density problems and limits the development of the relevant literature. In this respect, this study aims to contribute to the national literature while concurrently evaluating occupancy conditions in Türkiye with different measurement methods. Occupation density was assessed with the Eurostat method and British room standards, employing raw data from the Income and Living Conditions Survey (2021). The findings of the study reveal that problems related to occupation density vary depending on the method used; regional density values differ significantly from country averages; overcrowding is common among extended families, low-income groups and middle-aged households; underoccupancy is more common among 1-2 person households, households over the age of 65, and high-income groups. In line with these findings, it was concluded that a housing occupancy standard specific to Türkiye is needed, local norms and sub-markets have to be considered in the development of this standard, and there are some households to be given priority by housing policies to reduce the mismatch.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de hane-konut eşleşmesindeki uyumsuzlukları incelemektedir. Konu, aşırı kalabalık konut kullanımı ve düşük konut kullanım yoğunluğu sorunları üzerinden incelenmiştir. Pek çok ülkede hane-konut eşleşmesini değerlendirmek üzere konut kullanım yoğunluğu standartları geliştirilmiştir. Ancak Türkiye’de bu türden bir standardın olmaması hem bu alandaki sorunların incelenmesini ve takibini engellemiş hem de bu alandaki yazının oldukça kısıtlı kalmasına yol açmıştır. Bu açıdan, bu çalışma hem ulusal akademik yazına katkı sağlamayı amaçlamakta hem de kullanılan farklı ölçüm yöntemleri üzerinden Türkiye’deki durumu değerlendirmektedir. Çalışmada, konut kullanım yoğunluğu Eurostat yöntemi ve İngiliz oda bazlı mekân standardı üzerinden, Gelir ve Yaşam Koşulları Araştırması (2021) ham verileri ile incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları, konut kullanım yoğunluğuna ilişkin sorunların derecesinin kullanılan yönteme göre değişim gösterdiğini; bölgesel ölçekteki değerlerin ülke ortalamalarından önemli ölçüde farklılaştığını; aşırı kalabalıklığın özellikle geniş aileler, dar gelirli haneler ve orta yaşlı aileler arasında daha yaygın olduğunu; düşük konut kullanım yoğunluğunun ise 1-2 kişilik hane halkları, 65 yaş üzeri haneler ve en yüksek gelirli gruplar arasında daha çok gözlendiğini göstermiştir. Bu doğrultuda çalışmanın sonuçları Türkiye’ye özgü bir konut kullanım yoğunluğu standardına ihtiyaç duyulduğunu, bu standardın yerel normlar ve alt piyasalar gözetilerek geliştirilmesi gerektiğini ve konut politikalarının uyumsuzluğu gidermede öncelik vermesi gereken haneler olduğunu vurgulamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Khurami, E. A., Sarı, Ö. B. Ö. (2025). An Empirical Investigation on Household-Housing Mismatch: The Turkish Case. İDEALKENT, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 47, 8–30. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.1603563

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (29)

  1. Aksoy Khurami, E., & Özdemir Sarı, Ö. B. (2022). 21. yüzyılın konut krizi: Yeterli, yaşanabilir ve karşılanabilir konut. Ö. B. Özdemir Sarı & G. P. Sarıoğlu Erdoğlu (Edt.), Konut, afetler ve kentleşme üzerine yazılar (ss. 29-60). İdealkent.
  2. Balamir, M. (1996). Konut sisteminin bir diğeri: Küçük hane halkları. E. Komut (Edt.), Diğerlerinin konut sorunları (ss. 518-532). Uluslararası Mimarlar Birliği ve TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Yayını.
  3. Brackertz, N., Davison, J., Borrowman, L. & Roggenbuck, C. (2019). Overcrowding and severe overcrowding: an analysis of literature, data, policies and programs. AHURI Professional Services for NSW Department of Communities and Justice, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited. https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/810123/overcrowding-and-severe-overcrowding-policy-evidence-summary.pdf
  4. Cheshire, L. & Forrest, W. (2021) Homes too large for household needs? Under-occupancy as policy problem and lived experience among older social housing tenants. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 33(1), 22-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2019.1626325
  5. Cigdem, M. & Wood, G. (2012). Choice and government intervention in housing markets. S. J. Smith (Edt.), International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home (ss. 137-143). Elsevier Science.
  6. Clark, W. A. V. & Dieleman, F. M. (1996). Households and housing choice: Choice and outcomes in the housing market. Routledge.
  7. Clarke, A. (2012). Housing need in the United Kingdom. S. J. Smith (Edt.), International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home (ss. 538-543). Elsevier Science.
  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum.
  9. Eurostat (2024a, 3 Haziran). Share of people living in under-occupied dwellings by age, sex and poverty status – total population –EU-SILC. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ilc_lvho50a/default/table?lang=en
  10. Eurostat (2024b, 3 Haziran ). Overcrowding rate by age, sex and poverty status – total population –EU-SILC survey. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ilc_lvho05a__custom_9532775/default/bar?lang=en
  11. Harding, E. (2007). Older people’s housing and under-occupancy: A policy brief. International Logevity Centre – UK. https://ilcuk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/OlderPeoplesHousingAndUnderOccupancy.pdf
  12. Huebner, G. M. & Shipworth, D. (2017). All about size? – The potential of downsizing in reducing energy demand. Applied Energy, 186, 226-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.066
  13. Kearns, A. (2022). Housing space and occupancy standards: developing evidence for policy from a health and wellbeing perspective in the UK context. Building Research and Information, 50(7), 722-737. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2021.2024756
  14. Lorentzen, J. C., Johanson, G., Björk, F. & Stensson, S. (2022) Overcrowding and hazardous dwelling condition characteristics: A systematic search and scoping review of relevance for health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315542
  15. Myers, D., Baers, W.C. & Choi, S. (1996). The changing problem of overcrowded housing. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(1), 66-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975671
  16. OECD Affordable Housing Database (2024, 3 Haziran). HC2.1. Living space. https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HC2-1-Living-space.pdf
  17. Oğuz, S. C. (2003). The use and efficiency of housing stock in Turkey [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  18. Olotuah, A. (2012). Slums. S. J. Smith (Edt.), International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home (ss. 355-361). Elsevier Science.
  19. Özdemir Sarı, Ö. B. (2010). Reinvestment behaviour and policies in housing: The case of Turkey [Doktora tezi, TU Dortmund]. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, https://d-nb.info/1104735938/34
  20. Sabagh, G., Van Arsdol, M. D. & Butler, E. W. (1969). Some determinants of intrametropolitan residential mobility: Conceptual considerations. Social Forces, 48 (1), 88-98.
  21. Shelter (2011). Taking stock: Making the most from housing – An assessment of underutilisation of the housing stock in England. Shelter. https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_and_research/policy_library/policy_briefing_-_taking_stock
  22. Shelter (2023). Overcrowding: The legal definition of overcrowding and action that occupiers can take if their home is overcrowded. Shelter Legal England. https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/housing_conditions/overcrowding#reference-10
  23. Soaita, A. M. (2014). Overcrowding and ‘underoccupancy’ in Romania: A case study of housing inequality. Environment and Planning A, 46, 203-221. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45718
  24. Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı (2023). On İkinci Kalkınma Planı (2024-2028). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/On-Ikinci-Kalkinma-Plani_2024-2028_17112023.pdf
  25. Swift, S. (1938). Overcrowding standards: A comparative study. Journal of the Royal Sanitary Institute, 58, 628-40.
  26. Taylan Susan, A. (2022). Konut ve çevresindeki dirençliliğin kentlerdeki mekânsal örüntüsü: Türkiye örneği. Ö. B. Özdemir Sarı & G. P. Sarıoğlu Erdoğdu (Edt.), Konut, afetler ve kentleşme üzerine yazılar (ss. 85-124). İdealkent.
  27. Tunstall, R., Bevan, M., Bradshaw, J., Croucher, K., Duffy, S., Hunter, C., Jones, A., Rugg, J., Wallace, A. & Wilcox, S. (2013). The links between housing and poverty: An evidence review. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. https://www.jrf.org.uk/housing/the-links-between-housing-and-poverty
  28. Van Ham, M. (2012). Economics of housing choice. S. J. Smith (Edt.), International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home (ss. 42-46). Elsevier Science.
  29. World Health Organization (WHO). (2018). Housing and health guidelines. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550376