SavedAdd your journal

Journals / HUMANITAS - Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 28

THE GEOGRAPHY OF LEISURE: AN EXAMINATION OF TEMPORAL INEQUALITY AND LEISURE POVERTY IN TURKIYE

BOŞ ZAMANIN COĞRAFYASI: TÜRKİYE’DE ZAMAN EŞİTSİZLİĞİ VE BOŞ ZAMAN YOKSULLUĞU ÜZERİNE BİR İNCELEME

Hatice Erdoğan(TEKİRDAĞ NAMIK KEMAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0597-7430
Pages
181–200
Publication Date
2026-10-14
🏛️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)

Thus, leisure poverty in the Turkish context has been made visible, providing a data-driven approach for social policy development processes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, leisure poverty and time inequality in Türkiye are examined based on demographic factors.
📊
Key Findings & Data:These five categories were analyzed across 11 activity groups (voluntary work and meetings, household and family care, hobbies and games, social life and entertainment, sports and outdoor activities, media use, travel/unspecified time, sleep, eating and personal care, employment, and education).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Thus, leisure poverty in the Turkish context has been made visible, providing a data-driven approach for social policy development processes.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Boş Zaman Coğrafyası · Zaman Yoksulluğu · Zaman Kullanımı

Abstract

In this study, leisure poverty and time inequality in Türkiye are examined based on demographic factors. The aim of the study is to reveal how leisure time is distributed and which groups experience time poverty. In this context, data from the Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK) Time Use Survey were used. Time poverty was assessed through an evaluation of five demographic categories (marital status, gender, education level, weekday/weekend distinction, and age groups). These five categories were analyzed across 11 activity groups (voluntary work and meetings, household and family care, hobbies and games, social life and entertainment, sports and outdoor activities, media use, travel/unspecified time, sleep, eating and personal care, employment, and education). The study focuses on individuals’ daily time allocation patterns and the places where they spend their leisure time. According to the findings, married individuals in the 25-44 age group constitute the group experiencing the highest level of time poverty. Another group experiencing significant time poverty is women. Contrary to expectations, an increase in education level does not reduce pressure on leisure time; rather, higher education graduates experience greater time pressure due to intensive work schedules. After identifying the profile of those experiencing time poverty, structural inequalities, socio-demographic differences, and gender roles were discussed. Thus, leisure poverty in the Turkish context has been made visible, providing a data-driven approach for social policy development processes.

Özet

Bu araştırmada Türkiye’de boş zaman yoksulluğu ve zaman eşitsizliği demografik faktörler baz alınarak incelenmektedir. Çalışmanın amacı boş zamanın nasıl bölüşüldüğü ve hangi grupların zaman yoksulluğu yaşadığını ortaya koymaktır. Bu doğrultuda Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu’nun (TÜİK) Zaman Kullanım Araştırması verileri kullanılmıştır. Beş demografik kategoriye (Medeni durum, cinsiyet, eğitim düzeyi, hafta içi/hafta sonu ve yaş grupları) göre yapılan değerlendirme ile zaman yoksulluğu ortaya koyulmuştur. Bu beş kategori 11 aktivite (gönüllü işler ve toplantılar, hane halkı ve aile bakımı, hobiler ve oyunlar, sosyal yaşam ve eğlence, spor ve doğa sporları, medya kullanımı, ulaşım/belirsiz zaman, uyku, yemek ve kişisel bakım, istihdam, eğitim) altında analiz edilmiştir. Bireylerin günlük faaliyetlere ayırdıkları süreler ve boş zamanlarını geçirdikleri mekânlara odaklanılmıştır. Bulgulara göre 25-44 yaş grubundaki evli bireyler, en yüksek zaman yoksulluğu seviyesi yaşayan grubu oluşturmaktadır Bir diğer zaman yoksulluğu yaşayan grup kadınlardır. Eğitim düzeyinin artması ise beklenenin aksine boş zaman üzerindeki baskıyı azaltmamakta, yükseköğretim mezunları yoğun iş temposu nedeniyle zaman baskısı altında kalmaktadır. Zaman yoksulluğu yaşayan profilin belirlenmesinin ardından yapısal eşitsizlikler, sosyo-demografik farklılıklar ve toplumsal cinsiyet rolleri üzerinde durulmuştur. Böylelikle Türkiye özelinde boş zaman yoksulluğu görünür kılınmış, sosyal politika geliştirme süreçleri için veri temelli bir yaklaşım sunulmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Erdoğan, H. (2026). THE GEOGRAPHY OF LEISURE: AN EXAMINATION OF TEMPORAL INEQUALITY AND LEISURE POVERTY IN TURKIYE. HUMANITAS - Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 28, 181–200. https://doi.org/10.20304/humanitas.1816108

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (47)

  1. Aristotle. (2014). Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
  2. Aybay, R. (2016). İnsan Hakları Evrensel Bildirisi ve Türkiye (1945-1948). İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  3. Bahtin, M. (1983). The Dialogic Imagination. University of Texsas Press.
  4. Bartels, M. L. (2025). Aristotle on Citizenship, scholē and Democracy. Içinde Z. Czigányik & I. Dimovska (Ed.), Utopia and Democracy: Theories, Practices, Fictions (ss. 75-89). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-89913-3_5
  5. Bourdieu, P., & Nice, R. (2010). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (UK ed.). Routledge.
  6. Chatzitheochari, S., & Arber, S. (2012). Class, Gender and Time Poverty: A Time-use Analysis of British Workers’ Free time Resources. The British Journal of Sociology, 63(3), 451-471. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2012.01419.x
  7. Craig, L., & Mullan, K. (2013). Parental Leisure Time: A Gender Comparison in Five Countries. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 20(3), 329-357. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxt002
  8. Crouch, D. (2006). Geographies of Leisure. Içinde C. Rojek, S. M. Shaw, & A. J. Veal (Ed.), A Handbook of Leisure Studies (ss. 125-139). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625181_8
  9. Dattilo, J., & Lopez Frias, F. J. (2021). A Critical Examination of Leisure in Modernity: Rejecting Instrumentalism and Embracing Flourishing. Journal of Leisure Research, 52(5), 581-598. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2020.1789013
  10. Deem, R. (1986). All Work and No Play?: Sociology of Women and Leisure. Open University Press.
  11. Dorn, F. (2022). It’s Time: Poverty, Inequality and Sustainability beyond the Mean [Georg-August-Universit¨at Gottingen].
  12. Dorn, F., Radice, R., Marra, G., & Kneib, T. (2024). A Bivariate Relative Poverty Line for Leisure Time and Income Poverty: Detecting Intersectional Differences Using Distributional Copulas. Review of Income and Wealth, 70(2), 395-419. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12635
  13. Featherstone, P. M. (2007). Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. Sage Publications UK.
  14. Giurge, L. M., Whillans, A. V., & West, C. (2020). Why Time Poverty Matters for Individuals, Organisations and Nations. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(10), 993-1003. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0920-z
  15. Hägerstrand, T. (1970). What about People in Regional Science? Papers of the Regional Science Association, 24(1), 6-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01936872
  16. Harvey, D. (2019). Sosyal Adalet ve Şehir (M. Moralı, Çev.). Metis Yayınları.
  17. Henderson, K. A., & Allen, K. R. (1991). The Ethic of Care: Leisure Possibilities and Constraints for Women. Loisir et Société / Society and Leisure, 14(1), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/07053436.1991.10715374
  18. Hernández-González, A. de M., & Espeso-Molinero, P. (2025). Gender and Community-Based Tourism: Theoretical Debates from a Decolonial Perspective. Tourism and Hospitality, 6(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010042
  19. Jackson, E. L. (1994). Geographical Aspects of Constraints on Leisure and Recreation. Canadian Geographies / Géographies Canadiennes, 38(2), 110-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.1994.tb01669.x
  20. Jansen-Verbeke, M., & Dietvorst, A. (1987). Leisure, Recreation, Tourism: A Geographic View on Integration. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 361-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(87)90108-3
  21. Lefebvre, H. (2023). Mekanın Üretimi (I. Ergüden, Çev.). Sel Yayıncılık.
  22. Lefebvre, H., Moore, G., & Elden, S. (2017). Rhythmanalysis: Space, Time and Everyday Life. Bloomsbury Academic. Low, S., & Smith, N. (2006). The Politics of Public Space. Routledge.
  23. Massey, D. (1994). Space, Place, and Gender (NED-New Edition). University of Minnesota Press.
  24. Mahmoudzadeh, H., & Karami, M. (2022). Spatial Analysis of Space Justice in The Land Use Planning of Public Services Land Uses (Park and Green Space, Sports and Recreational-Tourist) in Tabriz Using Multi-Criteria Approach. Geography and Territorial Spatial Arrangement, 12(43), 31-64. https://doi.org/10.22111/gaij.2022.37565.2888
  25. Mattingly, M. J., & Blanchi, S. M. (2003). Gender Differences in the Quantity and Quality of Free Time: The U.S. Experience. Social Forces, 81(3), 999-1030. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3598184
  26. McDowell, L. (1983). Towards an Understanding of the Gender Division of Urban Space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 1(1), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1068/d010059
  27. McKenzie, G., Romm, D., Féré, C., & Balarezo, M. L. G. (2025). Gender Differences in Urban Recreational Running: A Data-driven Approach. Journal of Transport Geography, 124, 104171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2025.104171
  28. Mitchell, D. (1995). The End of Public Space? People’s Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85(1), 108-133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1995.tb01797.
  29. Mowl, G., & Towner, J. (1995). Women, Gender, Leisure and Place: Towards a More ‘Humanistic’ Geography of Women’s Leisure. Leisure Studies, 14(2), 102-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614369500390091
  30. Mullens, F., & Glorieux, I. (2023). Not Enough Time? Leisure and Multiple Dimensions of Time Wealth. Leisure Sciences, 45(2), 178-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2020.1805656
  31. Nišavić, I. (2025). The Emotional Dimension of Scholē: Ancient Leisure as a Path to Education. Pathos and Education. Rethinking Emotions in the Past and Present of Pedagogical Thought, June,26-27. https://rifdt.ifdt.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/4512
  32. Olabamiji, A., & Ajala, O. (2025). Geographic Perspectives of Time Poverty and the Attainment of Sustainable Development Goal one in Cities. Discover Cities, 2(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44327-025-00093-z
  33. Öner, Ö., & Klaesson, J. (2017). Location of leisure: The New Economic Geography of leisure services. Leisure Studies, 36(2), 203-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2016.1246588
  34. Rodgers, Y. V. D. M. (2023). Time Poverty: Conceptualization, Gender Differences, and Policy Solutions. Social Philosophy and Policy, 40(1), 79-102. doi:10.1017/S0265052523000389
  35. Rojek, C. (1999). Leisure and Culture. Springer.
  36. Rosa, H., & Trejo-Mathys, J. (2013). Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity. Columbia University Press.
  37. Rosa, H., & Wagner, J. C. (2019). Resonance: A Sociology of Our Relationship to the World. Polity.
  38. Schwanen, T., & Wang, D. (2014). Well-Being, Context, and Everyday Activities in Space and Time. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(4), 833-851. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.912549
  39. Sirgy, M. J., Uysal, M., & Kruger, S. (2017). Towards a Benefits Theory of Leisure Well-Being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 12(1), 205-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-016-9482-7
  40. Snape, R., Haworth, J., McHugh, S., & Carson, J. (2017). Leisure in a Post-work Society. World Leisure Journal, 59(3), 184-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2017.1345483
  41. Thomas, K. (1964). Work and Leisure. Past & Present, 29, 50-66.
  42. Toger, M., Türk, U., Östh, J., Kourtit, K., & Nijkamp, P. (2023). Inequality in Leisure Mobility: An Analysis of Activity Space Segregation Spectra in the Stockholm Conurbation. Journal of Transport Geography, 111, 103638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103638
  43. Vickery, C. (1977). The Time-Poor: A New Look at Poverty. The Journal of Human Resources, 12(1), 27-48. https://doi.org/10.2307/145597
  44. Wajcman, A. G. P. of S. J. (2015). Pressed for Time: The Acceleration of Life in Digital Capitalism (Reprint). University of Chicago Press.
  45. Wang, W., Liu, H., Liu, C., & Wu, X. (2026). Multi-criteria Evaluation of Urban Leisure Sports Parks from a Spatial Justice Perspective: Three Parks in Beijing. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 0(0), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2026.2618026
  46. Wearing, B. (1990). Beyond the Ideology of Motherhood: Leisure as Resistance. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 26(1), 36-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/144078339002600102
  47. Williams, J. R., Masuda, Y. J., & Tallis, H. (2016). A Measure Whose Time has Come: Formalizing Time Poverty. Social Indicators Research, 128(1), 265-283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1029-z