SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 21 Sayı: 1

Comparison of the public and private university campusses in Turkey in terms of the sustainable – ecological parameters

Türkiye’deki devlet ve vakıf üniversite kampüslerinin sürdürülebilir-ekolojik parametreleri açısından karşılaştırılması

Sema Kayapınar Kaya0000-0002-8575-4965
Murat Dal0000-0001-5330-1868
Ali Aşkın0000-0001-8571-3680
Pages
106–125
Publication Date
2019-03-15
🏛️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 this study, it is aimed to highlight the properties of the increasing number of the university campusses in Turkey in terms of sustainable and ecological properties. 5 public (Boğaziçi, Bülent Ecevit, Karabük, İstanbul Teknik, Ege) and 5 private (Özyeğin, Yeditepe, Bahçeşehir, Bilgi and Bilkent) universities are investigated in terms of sustainable and ecological campus criterias such as “Energy Management”, “Sustainable Transportation”, “Waste Management”, “Water Management”, “Environmental Management” and “Sustainable Education”.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, it is aimed to highlight the properties of the increasing number of the university campusses in Turkey in terms of sustainable and ecological properties. 5 public (Boğaziçi, Bülent Ecevit, Karabük, İstanbul Teknik, Ege) and 5 private (Özyeğin, Yeditepe, Bahçeşehir, Bilgi and Bilkent) universities are investigated in terms of sustainable and ecological campus criterias such as “Energy Management”, “Sustainable Transportation”, “Waste Management”, “Water Management”, “Environmental Management” and “Sustainable Education”.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, it is aimed to highlight the properties of the increasing number of the university campusses in Turkey in terms of sustainable and ecological properties. 5 public (Boğaziçi, Bülent Ecevit, Karabük, İstanbul Teknik, Ege) and 5 private (Özyeğin, Yeditepe, Bahçeşehir, Bilgi and Bilkent) universities are investigated in terms of sustainable and ecological campus criterias such as “Energy Management”, “Sustainable Transportation”, “Waste Management”, “Water Management”, “Environmental Management” and “Sustainable Education”.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this study, it is aimed to highlight the properties of the increasing number of the university campusses in Turkey in terms of sustainable and ecological properties. 5 public (Boğaziçi, Bülent Ecevit, Karabük, İstanbul Teknik, Ege) and 5 private (Özyeğin, Yeditepe, Bahçeşehir, Bilgi and Bilkent) universities are investigated in terms of sustainable and ecological campus criterias such as “Energy Management”, “Sustainable Transportation”, “Waste Management”, “Water Management”, “Environmental Management” and “Sustainable Education”.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sürdürülebilir · ekolojik · kampüs

Abstract

In this study, it is aimed to highlight the properties of the increasing number of the university campusses in Turkey in terms of sustainable and ecological properties. 5 public (Boğaziçi, Bülent Ecevit, Karabük, İstanbul Teknik, Ege) and 5 private (Özyeğin, Yeditepe, Bahçeşehir, Bilgi and Bilkent) universities are investigated in terms of sustainable and ecological campus criterias such as “Energy Management”, “Sustainable Transportation”, “Waste Management”, “Water Management”, “Environmental Management” and “Sustainable Education”.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, ülkemizde hızla artan üniversitelerin yeni yapılaşma sürecindeki kampüslerde sürdürülebilir-ekolojik kampüs olma özelliği taşımaları konusunda bir farkındalık amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla, Türkiye’deki 5 Devlet Üniversitesi (Boğaziçi, Bülent Ecevit, Karabük, İstanbul Teknik, Ege), 5 Vakıf Üniversitesi (Özyeğin, Yeditepe, Bahçeşehir, Bilgi ve Bilkent) sürdürülebilir-ekolojik kampüs olma kriterleri olan “Enerji Yönetimi”, “Sürdürülebilir Ulaşım”, “Atık Değerlendirme”, “Su Yönetimi”, “Çevre ve Peyzaj Yönetimi”, “Sürdürülebilir Eğitim” parametreleri açısından 10 farklı üniversite kampüsü değerlendirilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kaya, S. K., Dal, M., Aşkın, A. (2019). Comparison of the public and private university campusses in Turkey in terms of the sustainable – ecological parameters. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 1, 106–125. https://doi.org/10.25092/baunfbed.532420

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (42)

  1. http://cevreonline.com/cevre-kirliliginin-nedenleri/, (07.06.2018).
  2. Ozon Tabakasını incelten maddelere dair Montreal Protokolü, (1990). http://iklim.cob.gov.tr/iklim/AnaSayfa/montrealptotokolu.aspx?sflang=tr,(19.01.2018.
  3. Türkeş, M., İklim Değişikliğiyle Savaşım, Kyoto Protokolü ve Türkiye, Mülkiye Dergisi, 32, 101-131, (2014).
  4. Engagement and the communication spectrum, (2017), http://www. stepstosustainability.com, (20.01.2018).
  5. Parmesan, C., Ecological Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. The Annual Review of Ecology, Evaluation, and Systematics, 37, 637-669, (2006).
  6. Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma için Coğrafi Eğitim ile ilgili Luzern (İsviçre) Deklarasyonu, (2007). http://www.igu-cge.org/Charters-pdf/turkish.pdf, (20.01.2018).
  7. Suwartha, N. Ve Sari, R., Evaluating UI GreenMetric as a tool to support green universities development: assessment of the year 2011 ranking, Journal of Cleaner Production,61, 46-53, (2013).
  8. http://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/criterian-indicator/, (30.01.2018).
  9. www.sustainability-year-in-review.stanford.edu, (30.12.2018).
  10. https://sustainability.berkeley.edu/water, (17.12.2017).
  11. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/sustainability/transport/sustainabletransport.aspx, (23.12.2017).
  12. Innovative and cost- saving solar solutions for colleges and universities, (2016). https://us.sunpower.com/sites/sunpower/files/solar-higher-education-colleges-universities_0.pdf, (02.01.2018).
  13. Wright, T. S., Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education, Higher Education Policy, 15, 2, 105-120, (2002).
  14. Shriberg, M., Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: strengths, weaknesses, and implications for practice and theory, Higher Education Policy, 15, 2, 153-167, (2002).
  15. Alshuwaikhat, H. M. ve Abubakar, I., An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 16, 1777-1785, (2008).
  16. Luis Velazquez, N. M., Sustainable university: what can be the matter?, Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 9-11, 810-819, (2006).
  17. Ragazzi, M. ve Ghidini, F., Environmental sustainability of universities: critical analysis of a green ranking. International Conference on Technologies and Materials for Renewable Energy, Environment and Sustainability, Energy Procedia, International conference on Technologies and Materials for Renewable Energy, Environment and Sustainability, 119,111-120, Beirut, Lebanon, (2017).
  18. Erdede, S.B. ve Bektaş, S., Ekolojik açıdan sürdürülebilir taşınmaz geliştirme ve yeşil bina sertifika sistemleri, Harita Teknolojileri Elektronik Dergisi, 6, 1, 1-12, (2014).
  19. https://yesilkampus.boun.edu.tr/, (18.12.2017).
  20. Crozdanic, L., ENR2 is the largest project in Arizona to earn a LEED Platinum certification, (2016). https://inhabitat.com/enr2-is-the-largest-project-in-arizona-to-earn-a-leed-platinum-certification/, (07.06.2018).
  21. Erdede, S.B., Erdede, B. And Bektaş, S., Sürdürülebilir Yeşil Binalar Ve Sertifika Sistemlerinin Değerlendirilmesi, V. Uzaktan Algılama ve Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Sempozyumu, İstanbul, Türkiye, (2014).
  22. https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/profile/strategy/erasmus-sustainable/operations, (07.06.2018).
  23. Tan, H., Chen, S., Shi, Q., ve Wang, L., Development of green campus in China, Journal of Cleaner Production, 64, 646-653, (2014).
  24. Tiyarattanachai, R. ve Hollmann, N., Green Campus initiative and its impacts on quality of life of stakeholders in Green and Non-Green Campus universities, 1-17, SpringerPlus 5, (2016).
  25. Saadatian, O., Bin Sopian, K. ve Salleh, E., Adaptation of sustainability community indicators for Malaysian campuses as small cities, Sustainable Cities and Society, 6, 40-50, (2013).
  26. Dagiliute, R. ve Liobikiene, G. University contributions to environmental sustainability: challenges and opportunities from the Lithuanian case, Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 891-899, (2015).
  27. Olszak, E., Composite indicators for a sustainable campus-Design rationale and methodology: The case of the Catholic Institute of Lille, Ecological Indicators, 23, 573-577, (2012).
  28. Hajrasouliha, A., Campus score: Measuring university campus qualities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 166-176, (2017).
  29. Yoshida, Y., Shimoda, Y. ve Ohashi, T., Strategies for a sustainable campus in Osaka University. Energy and buildings, 147, 1-8, (2017).
  30. Amr, A. I., Kamel, S., El Gohary, G. ve Hamhaber, J., Soil as an Ecological Factor for a Sustainable Campus Landscape, Procedia Environmental Sciences, 34, 1-12, (2016).
  31. A. Parasuraman, Valarie A. Zeithaml and Leonard L. Berry., A., Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research, Journal of Marketing, 49, 4, 41-50, (1985).
  32. Bhuian, S. N., Sustainability of Western branch campuses in the Gulf Region: Students’ perspectives of service quality, International Journal of Educational Development, 49, 314-323, (2016).
  33. Fahhihi, V., Hessami, A. ve Ford, D., Sustainable campus improvement program design using energy efficiency and conservation, Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 16, 400-409, (2015).
  34. Li, X., Tan, H. ve Rackes, A., Carbon footprint analysis of student behavior for a sustainable university campus in China, Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 97-108, (2015).
  35. UI GreenMetric Dünya Üniversiteler Sıralaması, (2017). http://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/UI-GreenMetric-Guideline-2017_Turkish-Rev.1.pdf. (21.01.2018).
  36. http://www.sabanciuniv.edu/tr/kampus-hayati/peyzaj, (15.12.2017).
  37. http://gazetesu.sabanciuniv.edu/tr/2013-01/kampuste-cevreci-ulasim, (06.06.2018).
  38. https://univerlist.com/blog/en-yesil-8-universite/, (06.06.2018).
  39. Kumbur, H., Özer, Z., Özsoy, H. D., ve Avci, E. D., Türkiye’de geleneksel ve yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarının potansiyeli ve çevresel etkilerinin karşılaştırılması, Yeksem 2005, III. Yenilenebilir Enerji Kaynakları Sempozyumu ve Sergisi, Mersin, (2005).
  40. http://web.beun.edu.tr/greenmetrics/, (30.12.2017).
  41. Suwartha, N. Ve Sari, R., Evaluating UI GreenMetric as a tool to support green universities development: assessment of the year 2011 ranking, Journal of Cleaner Production,61, 46-53, (2013).
  42. Tan, H., Chen, S., Shi, Q., ve Wang, L., Development of green campus in China, Journal of Cleaner Production, 64, 646-653, (2014).