Turkey’s Urbanization Within the Context of the Global South/North Divide: Continuities and Differences

Betül Duman Bay¹, Fahriye Dinçer²

^1,2Humanities and Social Science/ Yildiz Technical University

ABSTRACT: The article aims to analyze Turkey’s urbanization within the Global South and North continuum through four factors, namely “demographics, economic development, migration, and the production of the built environment”, as outlined by Randolph and Storper (2023). Turkey’s urbanization demonstrates both similarities, such as its informal settlements and their production, and differences, such as being rather early in completing its demographic transition, from the Global South. Moreover, “urbanization without growth” does not directly represent Turkey, and Turkey lacks a colonial history. Our analysis reveals a hybrid pattern in the urbanization process. However, particularly since the 2000s, Turkey’s urbanization has progressively aligned with the Global North due to its deindustrialization and neoliberal shift. The trajectory of Turkey’s urbanization presents a complex interplay between authoritarian state intervention and limited market dynamics. “Speculative urbanism” and a polity organized around increasing the share of urban rents are fundamental characteristics of this urbanization. The aggressive push for speculative urbanization reflects an overarching strategy to sustain economic growth, leading to sharp urban inequalities along with displacement and escalating ecological damages. More comparative urban research would elucidate significant disparities within the South, facilitating ongoing scrutiny of the Global South and Global North as analytical categories.

KEYWORDS: Urbanization, Speculative Urbanism, Global South, Turkey.

INTRODUCTION

This article examines urbanization in Turkey through a comparative framework that contrasts and compares urbanization in the Global South with that of the Global North. While the term urbanization expresses a rise in the urban population, the Global South has primarily replaced previous comparable concepts such as the “Third World, developing countries, and low- and middle-income countries.” It primarily pertains to different countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, most of which have experienced colonialism and are often marked by elevated poverty rates and informal economies (Smit, 2021).

According to the United Nations’ report of 2024, 55% of the overall population in the world live in urban places, with Asia and Africa having the lowest rates of urbanization at 50% and 43%, respectively. Turkey, being part of the Global South, which experiences the fastest urbanization globally, boasts a 77% urbanization rate (UN DESA). Following Randolph and Storper (2023, p. 6), we employ theories of urbanization in the Global South through four factors to conduct a comparative analysis of urbanization in Turkey: “demographic transition, economic development, migration, and the production of the built environment.” Situating Turkey within a global North-South urbanization continuum as a case study provides an insightful contribution to the distinctions and convergences that exist among the Global South and the Global North as analytical frameworks.

URBANIZATION THEORIES AND TURKEY’S URBANIZATION

Demography

Dyson asserts that urbanization is the product of demographic transitions: “from being predominantly rural to predominantly urban through the operation of mortality, fertility, and migration” (Dyson, 2011, p. 38). The time sequence of demographic transition and the factors driving an increase in urban population between the North and South are different. For the latter, the dynamic of urban growth has been “the natural growth rates” of the population settled in urban areas, characterized by low mortality and high fertility rates (Smit, 2021). Therefore, within the context of the Global South, the rapid growth of urban population in is not primarily dependent on rural-urban migration (Randolph and Storper, 2023, p. 7). The Global North completed its demographic transition earlier, and the urban population growth did not outpace migration growth. As of 2008, urban demographic transition was complete (Dumont, 2018, p. 17).

At the global level, Jedwab and his colleagues (2017) empirically link rapid urban growth and urbanization in the Global South to demographic factors. High urban natural increase, rather than migration, provides an insightful perspective on the phenomenon of “urbanization without growth.” (Fay and Opal, 2000; Jedwab and Vollrath, 2015) Countries that completed their urban demographic transition have seen a steady rise in urbanization, largely due to ongoing rural-urban migration, economic prospects in the service sector, and 1990s metropolization (Dumont, 2018). Today, the cities of early 19th century Europe, characterized by high mortality and lower rates of urban growth, stay in stark contrast to the rapidly urbanized cities of the Global South, which have increased fertility alongside lowered mortality rates (Jedwab et al., 2017).

Turkey serves as a notable case to conduct a comparison between the Global South and the North, illustrated by the reduction in mortality rates beginning in the 1945–50s, the decrease in fertility rates starting in the 1960s, and the resulting low mortality and birth rates observed in the post-2000 (Yüceşahin, 2009, p. 15) period. Beginning in 1950, the intensification of internal migration significantly influenced urbanization, increasing from 25% in the 1950s to 43.91% in the 1980s, and finally to 64.9% in 2000. Since 1950, urban districts with populations above ten thousand have experienced an annual average growth rate of 7.1%, in contrast to 1.4% for rural regions and 2.8% for the nation overall. Despite the Turkey’s population’s growth rate exceeding 2.5% since 1950, a negligible fraction of the urban population’s expansion is attributable to natural growth (Keleş, 1980, p. 350). Up until the 1980s, the dissolution of rural areas and the policies of national developmentalism in the second stage of late industrialization and demographic transition primarily increased internal migration. The introduction of antinatalist policies, the near completion of the “demographic transition”, and the appearance of disparities in opportunity and migration among urban areas as well as metropolization characterized the post-1980 period. Moreover, as it will be discussed in the migration section, the “urbanization of forced migration”—both national and international—and the establishment of new administrative divisions may also shed light on the rapid and diverse pace of urbanization observed in the cities during the post-1980 period (Duman-Bay, 2024).

Turkey’s demographic data in relation to the urban transition has recently started to converge with that of the Global North. The Global South is undergoing a significantly larger population increase compared to that of 19th century Europe, which, according to Randolph and Storper (2023), might increase stress on institutions and necessitate a different policy context, implying no structural difference. In this sense, economic structure and development require attention.

Economic Development

Scholars accept the push (rural) and pull factors (urban) as an explanation of urbanization. Accordingly, one of the main drivers of urbanization is the shift in employment opportunities, occurring in tandem with the economic transition from agriculture to industrialization and from manufacturing to the tertiary sector in urban areas. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Europe and North America experienced industrialization and urbanization almost simultaneously, whereas a gap existed between them in the Global South, with the primary outcome of the emergence of informal employment and settlements (Dyson, 2011, p. 37). The Industrial Revolution in Europe initiated a rapid expansion in urbanization, rising from 15% in 1800 to 40% in 1910. However, a century later, Asia and Africa attained those percentages in half the duration, from 1950 to 2010 (Jedwab et al., 2017).

Some scholars argue that some countries in the Global South experience the situation of “urbanization without growth” as a result of rural poverty and increase in urban utility, which escalate urbanization (Jedwab et al., 2017, p. 7). According to Gollin (2018), in the late 20th century, in low-income nations, urbanization has developed without industrialization or improved living conditions for the majority. In this scope, the urbanization in “consumption cities” of resource-exporting countries contrasts with that of “production cities” in industrialized countries that are based on manufacturing (Mahendra et al., 2022). Further, some empirical analyses show that agriculture appears as a much more critical factor in urbanization than industrialization in China (Young and Deng, 1998). For Turkey, both the rapid dissolution of agriculture due to rapid mechanization through Marshall Aid (1945) and partially the state-led industrialization (1923-50 and 1960s) contributed to urbanization.

Second, some researchers agree that the Global South is still undergoing industrialization while the Global North has been deindustrializing since the 1960s (Schindler et al., 2020). For example, China’s industrial sector employment share increased from 18% in 1980 to 29% in 2010. Moreover, China and India contribute to the services sector 35% and 27%, respectively, while the UK and the USA account for 79% and 81%, respectively (Duman and Coşkun, 2015). Similarly, South Korea’s share of national manufacturing output increased from 19% in 1970 to 29% in 2015 (Pike, 2020, p. 9).

However, Schindler and his colleagues (2020) identify deindustrialization as a prevalent phenomenon occurring in both the North and the South. While Western contexts acknowledge urbanization as a dominant phenomenon that replaces industrialization with deindustrialization, Turkey continues to sustain manufacturing to a certain degree. Particularly, national developmentalism and the shift of industrialization to metropolitan areas through development plans between 1960 and 1980 established a link between urbanization and industrialization. In the post-1980 period, Turkey abandoned national developmentalism, shifted to export-oriented industrialization, and changed the geographical distribution of economic opportunities. The restructuring of economies in the services sector in places designated as growth poles during the national development period, or the relocation of industries to the periphery of metropolitan areas or smaller cities in Anatolia, have altered the geographies of industry and the spatial division of labor between cities (Duman-Bay, 2024).

Consequently, new industrialization centers such as Bursa, Kocaeli, and Tekirdağ have emerged, interacting with the Istanbul metropolis and the Anatolian cities of Kayseri, Konya, Gaziantep, and Denizli. Cities like Samsun, Izmir, and Mersin have gained prominence due to their trade and logistics capabilities, leading to a surge in migration (Genç et al., 2021, p. 49).

However, the proportion of manufacturing in terms of value-added to GDP declined from 23% in 1990 to 18% in 2011 (Doğruel, 2013). It is pointed out that urbanization often supersedes industrialization as a means of wealth generation and (re)distribution during the historical phase known as “deindustrialization” (Schindler et al., 2020, p. 293-294). Therefore, rather than being solely an outcome, post-2010 urban transformation in Turkey may serve as a catalyst for deindustrialization, which has been driven by heightened investment in the built environment, particularly fueled by foreign financial capital. Research demonstrates that state-led urban transformation in Turkey initiates, or at least accelerates, deindustrialization.

Migration

In the Global South’s urban transitions, there has been a gradual decrease in the influence of rural-urban migration on the growth of urban population, whereas urban-to-urban migration rates are generally increasing. In comparison to the North, transition to a naturally increasing growth of urban population has transpired in the South at lower developmental levels and a significant portion of the population still resides in rural regions. This is one of the primary contrasts between the Global North and the South (Randolph and Storper, 2023, p. 11–12).

Although the urbanization processes in various countries of the Global South vary significantly, there are common trends: The number of megacities is rapidly increasing, blurring the distinction between rural and urban regions, necessitating a continuum rather than a dichotomy (Randolph and Storper, 2023, p. 12). In 2018, Africa and Asia housed around ninety percent of the global rural population. By 2030, the UN anticipates that the world will have 43 megacities, each with populations exceeding 10 million, mainly located in developing areas. Nonetheless, several of the rapidly expanding urban agglomerations are cities with populations under 1 million, predominantly situated in Asia and Africa (UN DESA, 2019).

A body of literature on “southern urbanism” has emerged as a result of the intense debate around the characteristics of cities and life in the urban regions in the Global South (Smit, 2021). The convergence of internal migration and its spatial configurations in the North and South throughout time depends on how urban systems will evolve in each region. Currently, the South does not have higher rates of rural-urban mobility than the North did throughout its urban transition. However, the speed of natural urban population growth, as well as the demographic densification in rural regions, facilitating the transformation of more villages into urban towns, are distinct (Randolph and Storper, 2023).

In the context of Turkey, the urbanization rate escalated from 25% in 1950 to 43.91% in 1980, while Western nations required over a century to achieve urbanization at a rate of 40%. As illustrated by Kocaman, urbanization in Turkey accelerated more rapidly after 1980 and reached 59% in 1990 and 64.9% in 2000. It increased from 76.8% in 2010 to 93% following the implementation of Metropolitan Law No. 6360 in 2012 (Duman-Bay, 2024). With the exception of the 1980–85 period, when village evacuations led to an increase, migration between settlements has significantly decreased, particularly from village to village and from village to city. Especially in the post-1980 period, the predominant migratory pattern is from one city to another: the migration from smaller cities to larger urban centers or metropolises and from Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia to the western areas (Kocaman, 2008, p. 18). After 1980, both industrial cities like Kocaeli, Bursa, and Tekirdağ, as well as tourist destinations such as Antalya and Muğla, have emerged as significant hubs for net migration (Kocaman, 2008, p. 26). The “university in every city” concept, initiated in the post-1980 era, has been expedited by the inclusion of public institutions during the 2000s, resulting in urban-urban migration (Işık, 2008, p. 159-181).

The phenomenon known as the “urbanization of forced migration” has significantly influenced Turkey’s urbanization. The Kurdish issue and conflicts in the region were significant drivers of migration and urbanization in the 1990s. Between 1991 and 1995, the Kurdish population migrated from rural areas to urban centers like Diyarbakır, as well as from Eastern Anatolia to nearby cities like Adana, Mersin, Antalya, or to Istanbul, Izmir, and Bursa (Duman-Bay et al., 2021).

The influence of both economically motivated migration and forced migration on the spatial dispersion of the population is evident in the emergence of metropolitan areas with populations surpassing one million: Istanbul, Izmir, Ankara, Adana, Bursa, and Kayseri in 1980; Diyarbakır, Gaziantep, Mersin, Hatay, Samsun, and Manisa in 1990; Kocaeli, Kayseri, Balıkesir, and Kahramanmaraş in 2000 became metropolises. The Marmara Region, with a population of 25 million, has challenges related to overpopulation, whilst Eastern Anatolia, with 6.5 million residents, Southeastern Anatolia, with 8.5 million, and the Black Sea Region, with 7.6 million, are witnessing population reduction (Kocaman, 2008, p. 26-32). The regions exhibiting the highest net migration rates from 2008 to 2020 are East Marmara and West Marmara. Cities and regions where capital is eager to invest for profitability have grown continuously and uncontrollably. On the other hand, the withdrawal of capital and the abandonment of the nationalist period’s investment framework aiming at balanced and just national development have shrunk and depopulated some cities, deepening regional and intercity inequalities (Duman-Bay, 2024).

Although metro/megapolitanization has continued, international migration has become the principal factor influencing urbanization in particular countries of the Global South since 2010. The second most significant migratory route from the Syrian Arab Republic is to Turkey, which accommodates about 3.6 million refugees, rendering it the largest host country globally (UN, 2024, p. 22). The Islamic Republic of Iran and Pakistan precede Turkey (UN, 2024, p. 69). The enormous influx of refugees has significantly influenced population distribution, demographic makeup, and the geographical and social dynamics of urban areas in Turkey.

Production of Built Environment

The cumulative effects of rapid urbanization and the state’s failure to effectively govern urban areas include the increasing prevalence of informal settlements and slums. In the Global South, informal urban settings are prevalent, and the state plays a significant role in producing this informality (Roy, 2011).

Scholars from the Global South have generated significant research regarding the built environment, emphasizing notable contrasts between cities in the South and those in the North. The production of the built environment in the South often follows a pattern that illustrates the “reverse order,” regarding physical urbanization observed in the North. Compared to the North, certain regions of the Global South institutionalize “land management and service delivery” in an inversely structured manner. While informalities are infrequent in the North, they are prevalent in the South (Randolph and Storper, 2023, p. 13-14).

Today, more than one billion people, including one-third of the global urban population and two-thirds in low-income nations, live in informal settlements devoid of essential amenities and secure tenure, which are prevalent in cities throughout the Global South. Despite their disadvantages, informal settlements serve as hubs of considerable economic activity and informal labor. Informal workers with inadequate, unstable, and inconsistent livelihoods constitute 50–80% of urban employment in the Global South (UN DESA, 2024).

Since it started in the 1950s as a result of the rapid disintegration of agriculture, this aspect of urbanization in Turkey, which differs from the Global North, has been problematized through terms such as “excessive urbanization,” “pseudo urbanization,” or “rapid urbanization.” (Arlı, 2005). Unlike social housing in the North, the most obvious manifestation of Turkey’s urbanization has been the squatter areas. This balance sheet is also linked to the lack of planning, the blindness, unpreparedness, and rational/institutional inadequacy of public policies regarding both migration and migrant integration, as well as the concessions made to the Republic’s modernization project (Arlı, 2005). This situation has also paved the way for populist and clientelist politics. The proportion of the squatter population within the total urban population rose from 4.7% in 1955 to 16.4% in 1960 and 23.6% in 1970 (Keleş, 2008). The 1966 Law No. 775 on Squatters legitimized and transformed them into established neighborhoods, granting access to public services through the bargaining power they acquired in return for their votes. Prices also reflected the rehabilitation of squatters and their access to public services. After 1980, the legal real estate market included squatter areas with numerous zoning amnesties (Erman, 2012, p. 294-295).

Since the late 1990s, political discourse and implementations regarding squatters have changed dramatically due to the nation’s neoliberal shift (Türkün, 2015, p. 309). The squatter people began to be coded as the “dangerous other” (Erman, 2012, p. 300), and the perceived threat from these regions became a significant rationale for state-led urban transformation. The central and local governments, under the regulations passed in 2005 (Law No. 5366) in renewal sites and 2012 (Law No. 6306) in disaster-prone areas, targeted initially squatter areas, which no longer fit into the neoliberal urban regime (Duman-Bay, 2024). Besides, the start of a period in which private firms and land developers heavily shifted their investments to the built environment turned metropolitan areas into a huge construction site.

Building on Roy’s (2011) claim that the defining characteristic of Southern Urbanism is the production of informality, we contend that the grassroots informality, which was previously fostered with state negligence and legitimatization, is now accompanied by elite informality, which is also produced by the state. “Speculative urbanism” (Goldman, 2011), consolidated by an authoritarian governance structure, created a rent-seeking society, validating Ghetner’s (2015) argument on other Southern cities. In the post-2000 period, the neoliberal turn and emphasis on urban transformation in the economy and social control aligned Turkey’s urbanization pattern with that of the Global North.

CONCLUSION

This article started with a key distinction emphasized by many scholars regarding urbanization processes that have been taking place in the Global South in comparison to those in the North. (Smit, 2021). However, discussions on both the validity of the dichotomy and the requirement for further theorization continue. There are scholars who theorize urbanism beyond the dichotomy between the North and the South. For instance, according to “planetary urbanization,” a concept proposed by Brenner and Schmid (2014, 2015), urban boundaries have broadened to include extensive territories that surpass the limits of even the largest megacity regions, agricultural zones, wilderness, and oceans. On the other hand, Smit (2021) questions the applicability of the same urbanization theories to both regions, not the dichotomy itself. Particularly, some urban researchers from the Global South underscore the imperative to formulate novel methodologies for comprehending the different urbanization processes occurring in Southern cities (see Robinson, 2005; Roy, 2009), with a special emphasis on the long-standing impacts of colonialism and its contemporary economic forms.

The four dynamics as proposed by Randolph and Storper, interact in various configurations and scales across cities, resulting in distinct urbanization contexts. Although it is possible to indicate a general distinction between urbanization of the North and the South, it is essential to acknowledge the lack of homogeneity within each region. Turkey’s urbanization demonstrates both similarities, such as its informal settlements and production, and differences, such as earlier completion of the demographic transition, from the Global South. Moreover, “urbanization without growth” (Fay and Opal, 2000) is not representative of Turkey, and Turkey lacks a colonial history. Despite Turkey’s assumed inclusion in the Global South, our analysis reveals that its urbanization process exhibits a hybrid pattern across different periods, including 1950-80, 1980-2000, and after 2000. Notwithstanding differences in pace, particularly since the 2000s, Turkey’s urbanization has increasingly converged with the Global North due to deindustrialization and the neoliberal turn. The trajectory of Turkey’s urbanization presents a complex interplay between authoritarian state intervention and limited market dynamics. “Speculative urbanism” (Goldman, 2011) and a polity organized around increasing the share of urban rents are fundamental characteristics of this urbanization that deserve attention. The aggressive push for speculative urbanization reflects an overarching strategy to sustain economic growth, fundamentally reshaping urban landscapes and increasing ecological damages.

New comparative case studies regarding urbanization in the South would illuminate significant differences between its cities. Moreover, they would facilitate the ongoing examination of the Global South and the Global North as analytical frameworks, as well as the dichotomy revealed by this distinction, providing further differences and/or convergences between them, which are not addressed in this text.

REFERENCES

1. Arlı, A. Cumhuriyet dönemi kentleşme ve gecekondu çalışmaları yazını. Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi. 2005; 3(6), 283-352.
2. Brenner, N., Schmid, C. Towards a new epistemology of the urban? 2015; 19 (2–3), 151–182.
3. Brenner, N., Schmid, C. The “urban age” in question. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 2014; 38(3), 731–755.
4. Doğruel, F. Deindustrialization of old industrial regions in Turkey. Rives Méditerranéennes. 2013; 46. 93-108. https://doi.org/10.4000/rives.4528
5. Duman-Bay, B., Coşkun, İ. Kentsel Dönüşüm: Temel meseleler. In: Duman B, Coşkun İ, editors. Neden Nasıl Kim İçin Kentsel Dönüşüm. İstanbul: Litera. 2015:21-52.
6. Duman-Bay, B., Bayırbağ, MK., Alacahan, O. Sosyal Kaynaşma ve Kürtler. 2015. İstanbul: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
7. Duman-Bay, B. Cumhuriyet Dönemi Göç ve Kentleşme: Göç Dinamikleri, Mekansal ve Sosyal ilişkilerin Değişimi. In: N. Gürboğa. editor. Kentleşme ve Çevre Tarihi. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları (forthcoming)
8. Dumont, G. F. Urban demographic transition. Urban development issues. 2018; 56, 13- 25. Available from: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01781454/document. Accessed 18 October, 2024.
9. Dyson, T. The Role of the demographic transition in the process of urbanization. Population and Development Review. 2011; 37, 34-54
10. Erman, T. Urbanization and urbanism. In: Heper M, Sayarı S, editors. The Routledge Handbook of Modern Turkey. Routledge. 2012: 293-302.
11. Fay, M., Opal, C. Urbanization without growth: a not-so-uncommon phenomenon. The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series 2412. 2000.
12. Genç, F., Keyman, F., Keyder Ç., Badur, A. K. (2021). Kentlerin Türkiyesi, İstanbul: İletişim
13. Ghertner AD. Why gentrification theory fails in ‘much of the world’. City. 2015; 19(4), 552–563.
14. Goldman, M. Speculative urbanism and the making of the next world city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 2011; 35(3), 555–581.
15. Gollin, D. Structural transformation without industrialization. Pathways for Prosperity Commission Background Paper Series 2018; no. 2. Oxford. United Kingdom. Available from:https://pathwayscommission.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-09/structural_transformation_and_growth_without_industrialisation.pdf. Accessed 12 October, 2024.

16. Işık, Ş. Türkiye’de üniversitelerin kentleşme üzerine etkileri. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2008; 10 (3), 159-181.
17. Jedwab, R.; Vollrath, D. Urbanization without growth in historical perspective. Explorations in Economic Perspective. October 2015; 58: 1-21
18. Jedwab, R., Christiaensen, L., Gindelsky, M. Demography, urbanization and development: rural push, urban pull and…urban push? Urban Econ. 2017; 98, 6–16.
19. Keleş, R. Kentleşme politikası. 2018. 10. Edition. Ankara: Imge.
20. Keleş, R. Urbanization and environment: Turkey. Spt/Oct. 1980, 284: 349-352.
21. Kocaman, T. Türkiye’de iç göçler ve göç edenlerin nitelikleri (1965-2000). 2008. Ankara: DPT Sosyal Sektörler ve Koordinasyon Müdürlüğü.
22. Mahendra, A., King, R., Du J., Dasgupta, A., Beard, VA., Kallergis, S., Seven, K. Transformations for more equitable and sustainable cities. 2022. World Resources Institute. Available from: https://publications.wri.org/transformations-equitable-sustainable-cities. Accessed 19 October, 2024.
23. Pike, A. Coping with deindustrialization in the global North and South. International Journal of Urban Sciences. 2020; 26(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2020.1730225
24. Randolp, G., Storper, M. Is urbanisation in the Global South fundamentally different? Comparative global urban analysis for the 21st century, Urban Studies. 2023; 60(1), 3–25.
25. Reher, D.S. The demographic transition revisited as a global process., Population, Space and Place. 2004; 10, 19-41.
26. Robinson J. Urban geography: World cities, or a world of cities. Progress in Human Geography. 2005. 29(6), 757–765.
27. Roy, A. The 21st-century metropolis: New geographies of theory. Regional Studies. 2009; 43(6), 819–830.
28. Roy, A. Slumdog cities: Rethinking subaltern urbanism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 2011; 35(2), 223–238.
29. Schindler, S. Towards a paradigm of Southern urbanism. City. 2017; 21(1), 47–64.
30. Schindler, S., Gillespie, T., Banks, N., Bayırbağ, M. K., Burte, H., Kanai, J. M., Sami, N. Deindustrialization in cities of the Global South. Area Development and Policy. 2020; 5(3), 283–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/23792949.2020.1725393
31. Smit, W. Urbanization in the Global South. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Global Public Health. 2021. Retrieved: 4 Nov. 2024, Available from https://oxfordre.com/publichealth/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190632366.001.0001/acrefore-9780190632366-e-251. Accessed 18 October, 2024.
32. Türkün, A. Kentsel dönüşümü yeniden düşünmek: Mevcut uygulamalar ve hâkim söylem üzerinden bir değerlendirme. In: Duman B, Coşkun İ. editors. Neden Nasıl Kim için Kentsel Dönüşüm. İstanbul: Litera. 2015: 285-332.
33. UN (United Nations). World migration report, 2024. Available from: https://www.un.org/uk/desa/68-world-population-projected-live-urban-areas-2050-says-un. Accessed October 20, 2024
34. UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). World population prospects 2024: Summary of results. Available from: https://desapublications.un.org/publications/world-population-prospects-2024-summary-results. Accessed October 20, 2024.
35. UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). World urbanization prospects: The 2018 revision. 2019. World Urbanization Prospects database. Available from: https://population.un.org/wpp/. Accessed October 10, 2024
36. Yüceşahin, M. M. Türkiye’nin demografik geçiş sürecine coğrafi bir yaklaşım. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi. 2009; 7(1), 1-25. Available from: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/691340. Accessed October 15, 2024.