Journals / ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning / 2021 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

Housing Conditions and Problems of SeasonalAgricultural Workers in Eskişehir Sarıcakaya Settlement, and Suggestions

Pages
53–90
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️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 information generated in the field belongs to the place, and this data is articulated and adopted for the nine different design solutions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose The purpose of this research is to determine the seasonal agricultural workers' housing problems in Laçin Village in Eskişehir and to reveal the solvability of these problems through an architectural design studio.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The duration of the stay excessing 6 months is found to be the main determinant of the life.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The information generated in the field belongs to the place, and this data is articulated and adopted for the nine different design solutions.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this research is to determine the seasonal agricultural workers' housing problems in Laçin Village in Eskişehir and to reveal the solvability of these problems through an architectural design studio. Design/Methodology/ApproachThe researchincludes two methodological sections. The first section consists of a review of the relevant literature to investigate the historical, legal, administrative and architectural issues on the housing problems of the seasonal agricultural workers. The second phase is based on a case study and a design studio process depending on that case study. The research was conducted in Laçin, to identify the characteristics of the housing problem in place. The data was obtained by observing, measuring, drawing, and photographing the existing housing. A survey was prepared and applied to the workers to gather data about the duration and the character of their stay. FindingsIt was determined that theseasonal agricultural workers in Laçin had some interrelated social, economic, and spatial problems. The duration of the stay excessing 6 months is found to be the main determinant of the life. In the light of these data, the type of housing of seasonal agricultural workers in Laçin was defined as a “new” typology. It is discovered to be neither temporary, nor permanent housing. It is found to be “semi-temporary housing”. In the research-based design process, the prominent design concepts for the “semi-temporary housing” type were identified from the local parameters and the existing user preferences. They are set as convenience, flexibility, sustainability, and being low-cost.Research Limitations/ImplicationsThe scope of the study is the sheltering problem of seasonal agricultural workers in Turkey. Therefore, it needs specifically to be determined and identified within local parameters. Social/Practical Implications The study makes an existing problem visible through fieldwork and reveals that a social change can be provided by developing a physical design proposal. Originality/Value The fieldwork and design studios are important sources of original knowledge production. The information generated in the field belongs to the place, and this data is articulated and adopted for the nine different design solutions.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kolsal, F., Güney, E. D. (2022). Housing Conditions and Problems of SeasonalAgricultural Workers in Eskişehir Sarıcakaya Settlement, and Suggestions. ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 53–90. https://ajindex.com/articles/538242

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Albek, S. (1991). Dorylaion’dan Eskişehir’e (No. 89). T.C. Anadolu Üniversitesi.
  2. Altınsapan, E., & Parla, C. (2004). Eskişehir Selçuklu ve Osmanlı yapıları I: Günyz̈ü-Mihalıççık-Seyitgazi-Mihalgazi-Sarıcakaya-Sivrihisar. TC Anadolu Üniversitesi.
  3. Anonymus. (2015).
  4. Tarihi, Doğası, Kültürü Ve Gelenekleriyle Sarıcakaya. Sarıcaya Kaymakamlığı.Benevolo, L. (1993). The European City (P. 135). Oxford: Blackwell. Çelik, A. (2005). Avrupa Sosyal Şartı ve Türkiye’nin Çekinceleri. Türk-İş Dergisi, 366, 91-98. Çinar S. & Lordoğlu, K. (2011, October 25-26). Mevsimlik Tarım İşçileri: Marabadan Ücretli Tarım İşçiliğine [Paper Presentation]. Sosyal Haklar Sempozyumu. Bildiri Kitabı, P. 419-448, Istanbul. https://www.petrol-is.org.tr/sites/default/files/shus-iii -bildiriler-20.10.11_asil.pdf Çinar, S. (2014). Öteki Proletarya: De-Proletarizasyon ve Mevsimlik Tarım İşçileri. Notabene Yayınları.
  5. Colquhoun, A. (1990). Beaubourg Platosu. Mimari Elestiri Yazıları. (A. Cengizkan, Trans.). Sevki Vanlı Mimarlık Vakfı. İstanbul. (Original Work published 1981)
  6. Culp, K., & Umbarger, M. (2004). Seasonal and Migrant Agricultural Workers: A Neglected Work Force. Aaohn Journal, 52(9), 383-390.
  7. Egemen E. A. (2015). MevsimlikTarım İşçileri Ve Barınma Sorunları [unpublished master’s dissertation]. Istanbul Technical University. Forty, A. (2000). Words and Buildings. Thames & Hudson. London. Gertel, J., & Sippel, S. R. (Eds.). (2014). Seasonal Workers In Mediterranean Agriculture: The Social Costs Of Eating Fresh. Routledge. Görücü, İ. & Akbiyik, N. (2010). Türkiye’de Mevsimlik Tarım İşçiliği: Sorunları Ve Çözüm Önerileri Hikmet Yurdu. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 5, 189 – 219. Hertzberger, H. (1991). Lessons for Students. 010 Publishers.
  8. Rotterdam. İslamoğlu, Ö. & Gülay, U. (2018). Mimari Tasarimda Esneklik Yaklaşimlarina Kuramsal Bir Bakiş. The Turkish Online Journal of Design Art andCommunication, 8(4), 673-683.
  9. Karabiyik, E. (2012). Mevsimlik Tarım Göçünden Etkilenen 6-12 Yaş Grubu Çocuklar İçin Temel Araştırma. Kalkınma Atölyesi. Ankara.
  10. Karabiyik, E. (2013). Çukurova’da Mevsimlik Tarım İşlerinde Çalışan Çocuklar İçin Model Eylem Planı. Kalkınma Atölyesi. Ankara.
  11. Koebel, C. T. & Daniels, M. P. (1997). Housing Conditions of Migrant andSeasonal Farmworkers. Virginia Center for Housing Research. Koruk, İ. (2010). İhmal Edilen Bir Grup: Göçebe Mevsimlik Tarım İşçileri. Türk Tabipler Birliği Meslek Sağlık Ve Güvenliği Dergisi, Ekim Kasım Aralık Sayısı. Kronenburg, R. (2011). Lecture on