SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Coğrafya Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 80

Urban regeneration projects and afterwards: Analysis of dısplacement in Antalya Kepez-Santral neighborhoods

Kentsel dönüşüm projeleri ve sonrası: Antalya Kepez-Santral mahalleleri örneğinde yerinden edilme süreçlerinin analizi

İsmail İlik(AKDENİZ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8808-7814
İhsan Bulut(Akdeniz Üniversitesi)0000-0002-4873-3479
Uğurcan Ayik(Gaziantep Üniversitesi)0000-0003-2019-5151
Pages
53–70
Publication Date
2022-06-30
🏛️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)

Finally, location advantage, kinship and neighborly relations, and affordability of rents are found to be the main factors during the preference of new neighborhoods.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Studies by researchers from different disciplines reveal that the most common result of urban regeneration projects is displacement.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, although the relevant literature has findings on the occurrence of displacement processes for various projects, they remain weak in terms of tracing the displaced residents.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally, location advantage, kinship and neighborly relations, and affordability of rents are found to be the main factors during the preference of new neighborhoods.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:kentsel dönüşüm projeleri · yerinden edilme · yer seçim tercihi

Abstract

Studies by researchers from different disciplines reveal that the most common result of urban regeneration projects is displacement. However, although the relevant literature has findings on the occurrence of displacement processes for various projects, they remain weak in terms of tracing the displaced residents. This study traces the households that had to move from Antalya Kepez-Santral neighborhood after the urban regeneration project. The main purpose of the study is to reveal the movement patterns of displaced households and causes that shaped those movements. Moreover, satisfaction levels with urban regeneration is also questioned. To achieve these goals, this study utilizes quantitative and qualitative data sets. Within the scope of the study, it has been determined that the households who were forced to move preferred neighborhoods close to the project area. Furthermore, households have stated that their attitude towards the urban regeneration project were negative and their social ties and connections were affected by the project. Finally, location advantage, kinship and neighborly relations, and affordability of rents are found to be the main factors during the preference of new neighborhoods.

Özet

Farklı bilim dallarından araştırmacıların yaptıkları çalışmalar kentsel dönüşüm projelerinin en yaygın etkisinin yerinden edilme süreçleri olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Fakat ilgili literatür farklı projeler için yerinden edilme süreçlerinin oluştuğunu tespit etmesine karşılık, zorunlu şekilde gerçekleşen hareketlerin sonrasına dair iz sürme süreci açısından zayıf kalmaktadır. Çalışma Antalya Kepez-Santral Mahallesi kentsel dönüşüm projesi sonrasında yer değiştirmek zorunda kalmış hanehalklarının izini sürmektedir. Çalışmadaki temel amaç yer değiştirmiş hanehalklarının hareket kalıplarının ve bu hareketlerdeki nedenselliklerin açığa çıkarılmasıdır. Ayrıca kentsel dönüşüme dair genel memnuniyet durumu da sorgulanmaktadır. Çalışma bunları gerçekleştirmek için nicel ve nitel veri setlerinden yararlanmaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında yer değiştirmek zorunda bırakılan hanehalklarının proje alanına yakın yerleri tercih ettiği tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca kentsel dönüşüme dair katılımcıların olumsuz bir tutum içerisinde olduğu, toplumsal bağ ve bağlantıların projeden etkilendiği belirlenmiştir. Son olarak yeni yer seçiminde lokasyon avantajı, akrabalık ve komşuluk ilişkileri, kira uygunluğu başat etkenlerdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

İlik, İ., Bulut, İ., Ayik, U. (2022). Urban regeneration projects and afterwards: Analysis of dısplacement in Antalya Kepez-Santral neighborhoods. Türk Coğrafya Dergisi, Sayı: 80, 53–70. https://doi.org/10.17211/tcd.1081972

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (67)

  1. Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. İçinde Kathryn E. Newcomer, Harry P. Hatry, Joseph S. Wholey (Ed.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (ss.492-505). Wiley. Andersson, R., & Musterd, S. (2005). Area-based policies: A critical appraisal. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 96(4), 377-389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2005.00470.x
  2. Antalya, Büyükşehir Belediyesi. (1995). Antalya anakenti yapısal planı 1/25000 ölçekli plan raporu. Antalya Büyükşehir Belediyesi. Atkinson, R. (2003). Introduction: Misunderstood saviour or vengeful wrecker? The many meanings and problems of gentrifìcation. Urban Studies, 40(12), 2343-2350. https://www.jstor.org/stable/ 43100502
  3. Atkinson, R., & Bridge, G. (2005). Introduction. İçinde R. Atkinson, & G. Bridge (Ed.), Gentrification in a Global Context The New Urban Colonialism (ss.1-17). Routledge.
  4. Ay, D. (2016). Is it possıble to plan displacement-free urban renewal? A comparatıve analysıs of the natıonal urban renewal program in Turkey [Doktora tezi, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/158318191.pdf
  5. Ayik, U. (2014). Mekânsal ve toplumsal yansımalarıyla Türkiye’de kentsel dönüşüm projelerine coğrafi bakış: Fikirtepe örneği (Yayın no: 361866) [Yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi] Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
  6. Ayik, U., & Enterili, Z. (2020). Değişen kent politikaları ve kentsel dönüşüm: Gaziantep Nuripazarbaşı Mahallesi örneği. lnternational Journal of Geography and Geography Education, (41), 221-244. https://doi.org/10.32003/igge.649700
  7. Baltacı, A. (2019). Nitel araştırma süreci: Nitel bir araştırma nasıl yapılır? Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(2), 368-388. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.598299
  8. Bayraktar, D., & Bayraktar, E. A. (2019). Antalya kent merkezinde kentsel dönüşüm uygulamaları. Beykent Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(1), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.20854/ bujse.517563
  9. Bolt, G., & Van Kempen, R. (2010). Dispersal patterns of households who are forced to move: Desegregation by demolition: A case study of Dutch cities. Housing Studies, 25(2), 159-180. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02673030903561834
  10. Bulut, İ., & Ceylan, S. (2013). Kentsel dönüşüm yaklaşımlarına bir örnek: Efendibey (Niğde) kentsel dönüşüm uygulaması. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(1), 239-256. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ataunisosbil/issue/2832/38493
  11. Cin, M. M., & Eğercioğlu, Y. (2016). A critical analysis of urban regeneration projects in Turkey: Displacement of Romani settlement case. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 216, 269-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.12.037
  12. Clampet-Lundquist, S. (2004). HOPE VI relocation: Moving to new neighbourhoods and building new ties. Housing Policy Debate, 15(2), 415-447. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2004.9521507
  13. Crump, J. (2002). Deconcentration by demolition: public housing, poverty, and urban policy. Environment and Planning D, 20(5), 581-596. https://doi.org/10.1068/d306
  14. Çağlar, A., & Schiller, N. (2018). Migrants & city-makıng dispossession, displacement, and urban regeneration. Duke University Press.
  15. Demir, F. (2021). Antalya Kepez ilçesindeki kentsel dönüşüm projelerinin irdelenmesi ve halkın yaklaşımlarının belirlenmesi (Yayın no: 676016) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Akdeniz Üniversitesi] Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
  16. Doğan, M. (2018). Antalya şehrinin (Muratpaşa, Kepez, Döşemealtı, Aksu, Konyaaltı) gelişmesinde etkili olan faktörler. International Journal of Geography and Geography Education (IGGE), 37, 187- 201. https://doi.org/10.32003/iggei.426712
  17. Donaldson, R., Kotze, N., Visser, G., Park, J., Wally, N., Zen, J., & Vieyra, O. (2013). An uneasy match: Neoliberalism, gentrification and heritage conservation in Bo-Kaap, Cape Town, South Africa. Urban Forum, 24, 173-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132- 012-9182-9
  18. Duman, S. (2020). Kentsel dönüşüm projelerinin mekânsal etkilerinin coğrafi açıdan analizi (Bursa ili Nilüfer ilçesi Ataevler mahallesi örneği) (Yayın no: 636643) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi] Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
  19. Erdem, S. (2019). Bir gecekondu mahallesinin dönüşümü: Macun örneği (Ankara-Yenimahalle) (Yayın no: 582084) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi] Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
  20. Ergün, C., & Gül, H. (2011). Urban regeneration and social segregation: The case of İstanbul. Toplum ve Demokrasi, (11), 155-172. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/toplumdd/issue/22742/242739 Fang, Y. (2006). Residential satisfaction, moving ıntention and moving behaviours: A study of redeveloped neighbourhoods in ınner-city Beijing. Housing Studies, 21(5), 671-694. https://doi. org/10.1080/02673030600807217
  21. Farha, L. (2011). Forced evictions, global crisis, global solutions. UN Habitat. https://unhabitat.org/
  22. Galster, G. (2007). Neighbourhood social mix as a goal of housing policy: A theoretical analysis, European Journal of Housing Policy, 7 (1), 19-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616710601132526
  23. Gans, H. (1993). People, plans, and policies. essays on poverty, racism, and other national urban problems. Columbia University Press.
  24. Glass, R. (1964). London: aspects of change. MacGibbon & Kee.
  25. Gökçe, G. (2011). Neoliberalizmin krizi ve yeni devlet/yönetim modeli arayışları, Türk İdare Dergisi, (471-472), 99-116. http://www.tid. gov.tr/Makaleler/05_Doc.Dr.Gulise_GOKCE_471_472.pdf
  26. Görgülü, Z. (2009). Kentsel dönüşüm ve ülkemiz, 1. İzmir Kent Sempozyumu, 08-10 Ocak 2009, Bildiriler Kitabı, 767-780.
  27. Güzey, Ö. (2016). The last round in restructuring the city: Urban regeneration becomes a state policy of disaster prevention in Turkey. Cities, 50, 40-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.08.010
  28. Hackworth, J., & Smith, N. (2001). The Changing state of gentrification. Tijdschriftvoor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 92(4), 464-477. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00172
  29. Hankins, K. P. (2014). Forced mobility: The relocation of public-housing residents in Atlanta. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(12), 2932-2949. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45742 Hartman, C., Keating, D., & Le Gates, R. (1982). Displacement: How to fight it. Natl Housing Law Project.
  30. Helbrecht, I. (2018). Gentrification and displacement. İçinde I. Helbrecht (Ed), Gentrification and Resistance (s. 1-7). Springer.
  31. Hürriyet. (2019, Haziran 10). Bakan Kurum: İstanbul’da kentsel dönüşüme 1 milyar 885 milyon lira destek sağladık. https://www. hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/bakan-kurum-istanbulda-kentsel-donusume- 1-milyar-885-milyon-lira-destek-sagladik-41239325, Erişim tarihi 18.10.2022.
  32. İslam, T., & Sakızoğlu, B. (2015). The making of, and resistance to, state-led gentrification in İstanbul, Turkey. İçinde L. Lees, H. Shin, & E. Morales (Ed.), Global Gentrifications Uneven development and Displacement (s. 245-264). Bristol University Press, Policy Press.
  33. Karadağ, A., & Mirioğlu, G. (2011). Bayraklı kentsel dönüşüm projesi üzerine coğrafi değerlendirmeler. Türk Coğrafya Dergisi, (57), 21-32. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tcd/issue/21224/227776
  34. Karpat, K. H. (2016). Türkiye’de toplumsal dönüşüm (kırsal göç, gecekondu ve kentleşme). Timaş Yayınları.
  35. Kearns, A., & Mason, P. (2013). Defining and measuring displacement: Is relocation from restructured neighbourhoods always unwelcome and disruptive? Housing Studies, 28(2), 177-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2013.767885
  36. Kılıç, T., & Hardal, S. (2014). Kentsel dönüşümün sosyal ve mekânsal yansımalarına bir örnek: Sarıgöl Mahallesi (Gaziosmanpaşa- İstanbul). Türk Coğrafya Dergisi, (62), 1-7. https://doi. org/10.17211/tcd.33157
  37. Kleinhans, R. (2003). Displaced but still moving upwards in the housing career? Implications of forced residential relocation in the Netherlands. Housing Studies, 18(4), 473-499. https://doi. org/10.1080/02673030304248
  38. Kleinhans, R., & Van Der Laan Bouma-Doff, W. (2008). On priority and progress: Forced residential relocation and housing chances in Haaglanden, the Netherlands. Housing Studies, 23(4), 565- 587. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673030802101641
  39. Kocaer, Ö, Ş. & Bal, Ö. H. (2013). Kentsel dönüşüm gerçeği ve İzmir uygulamaları üzerine bir değerlendirme, TMMOB 2. İzmir Kent Sempozyumu, 28-30 Kasım 2013, 445-452.
  40. Korkmaz, C., & Balaban, O. (2020). Sustainability of urban regeneration in Turkey: Assessing the performance of the North Ankara urban regeneration project. Habitat International, 95, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2019.102081
  41. Lees, L. (2011). The geography of gentrification: Thinking through comparative urbanism. Progress in Human Geography, 36(2), 155-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511412998
  42. Lees, L., & Ferreri, M. (2016). Resisting gentrification on its final frontiers: Learning from the Heygate Estate in London (1974–2013). Cities, 57, 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.12.005
  43. Lees, L., Shin, H., & Morales, E. (2015). Conclusion: Global gentrifications. İçinde L. Lees, H. Shin, & E. Morales (Ed.), Global Gentrifications Uneven Development and Displacement (p. 441-452). Policy Press.
  44. Lees, L., Slater, T., & Wyly, E. (2008). Gentrification. Routledge. Lelevrier, C. (2013). Forced relocation in France: How residential trajectories affect individual experiences. Housing Studies, 28(2), 253-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2013.767883
  45. Lovering, J., & Türkmen, H. (2011). Bulldozer neo-liberalism in İstanbul: The state led construction of property markets, and the displacement of the urban poor. International Planning Studies, 16(1), 73-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2011.552477
  46. Marcuse, P. (1989). Gentrification, homelessness, and the work process: Housing markets and labour markets in the quartered city. Housing Studies 4(3), 211-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673038908720660
  47. Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D. & Festiner, D. (2005). Essentials of research design and Methodology. Wiley.
  48. Miltenburg, E., Werfhorst, H., & Tieskens, K. (2018). Consequences of forced residential relocation: Early impacts of urban renewal strategies on forced relocatees’ housing opportunities and socioeconomic outcomes. Housing Policy Debate, 28(4), 609-634. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2018.1424722
  49. Neuman, W. L. & Robson, K. (2014). Basics of social research. Pearson Canada.
  50. Özcan, H. (2018). Yeni nesil kentsel dönüşüm üzerine bir araştırma Antalya Kepez – Santral Mahallesi örneği (Yayın no: 498474) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Akdeniz Üniversitesi] Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
  51. Öner, R., & Şimşek, A. (2017). Romani People and the ‘Right to the City’: Gentrification in Fevzipasa, Çanakkale, Turkey. Journal of Gypsy Studies, 1(1), 49-64. https://doi.org/10.33182/jgs. v1i1.529
  52. Özkul, O., & Aydın, T. (2019). Kent ve mahalle kültürü arasındaki Fikirtepe. Kent Kültürü ve Yönetimi Hakemli Elektronik Dergi, 12(1), 82-103. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kent/issue/ 43742/494482
  53. Popkin, S., Levy, D., Harris, L., Comey, J., Cunningham, M., & Buron, L. (2004). The HOPE VI program: What about the residents? Housing Policy Debate, 15(2), 385-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/105 11482.2004.9521506
  54. Porter, L., & Shaw, K. (2009). Whose urban renaissance? An international comparison of urban regeneration strategies. Routledge.
  55. Sakızoğlu, B. (2014). Insertıng temporalıty ınto the analysıs of dısplacement: lıvıng under the threat of dısplacement. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 105(2), 206-220. http://hdl. handle.net/10.1111/tesg.12051
  56. Slater, T. (2009). Missing Marcuse: On gentrification and displacement. City Analysis of Urban Change, Theory, Action, 13(2), 292- 311. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810902982250
  57. Slater, T. (2012). Expulsions from public housing: The hidden context of concentrated affluence. Cities, 35, 384-390. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.10.009
  58. Smith, N. (2002). New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrification as global urban strategy. Antipode, 34(3), 427-450. https://doi. org/10.1111/1467-8330.00249
  59. Şirin, A. (2018). Antalya ili Kepez ilçesi kentsel dönüşüm çalışmalarının değerlendirilmesi (Yayın no: 507106) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi] Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
  60. Tieskens, K., & Musterd, S. (2013). Displacement and urban restructuring in Amsterdam; following relocatees after demolition of social housing. Urban Research & Practice, 6(2), 194-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2013.808432
  61. Ünsal, B. (2015). Impacts of the Tarlabaşı urban renewal project: (forced) eviction, dispossession and deepening poverty. WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, 193, 45-56. https://doi:10.2495/SDP150041
  62. Ünsal, B., & Türkün, A. (2014). Neoliberal kentsel dönüşüm kentsel alanlarda sınıfsal tahliye, yoksullaşma ve mülksüzleşme. İçinde A. Türkün (Ed.), Mülk, mahal, İnsan İstanbul’da Kentsel Dönüşüm (s. 17-42). İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  63. Waite, I. (2020). Low-income resident displacement through regeneration: the case of Ayazma, Istanbul. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Urban Design and Planning, 173(2), 54-61. https://doi.org/10.1680/jurdp.19.00035
  64. Wang, Z. (2020). Beyond displacement – exploring the variegated social impacts of urban redevelopment. Urban Geography, 41(5), 703-712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1734373
  65. Watt, P. (2018). This pain of moving, moving, moving”: evictions, displacement and logics of expulsion in London. L’Annee Sociologique, 67-100. https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_ANSO_ 181_0067--this-pain-of-moving-moving.htm
  66. Watt, P. (2021). Displacement and estate demolition: multi-scalar place attachment among relocated social housing residents in London. Housing Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2 020.1867081
  67. Yuen, B., Yeh, A., & Earl, G. (2006). High-Rise living in Singapore public housing. Urban Studies, 43(3), 583-600. https://doi. org/10.1080/00420980500533133