Documentation and Examination of the Conservation Problems of Rural Architectural Heritage: Yozgat Topçu Village

ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCES AND SUSTAINABLE APPROACHES: URBAN RESILIENCE Editors Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ October 15, 2025 Copyright © 2025 by İKSAD publishing house All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. Institution of Economic Development and Social Researches (The Licence Number of Publicator: 2014/31220) TÜRKİYE TR: +90 342 606 06 75 USA: +1 631 685 0 853 E mail: [email protected] www.iksadyayinevi.com It is responsibility of the author to abide by the publishing ethics rules. Iksad Publications – 2025© Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience ISBN: 978-625-378-337-2 Cover Design: Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ October 15, 2025 Ankara / Türkiye Size = 16x24 cm PREFACE Dear Professors and Colleagues, We are pleased bring to life that Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience, which was published as an e-book by IKSAD Publishing House with the editors Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU and Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ. This book project, entitled “Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience,” aims to address sustainability-oriented approaches to urban resilience from theoretical, methodological, and practical perspectives. The volume seeks to establish a multi-layered platform of discussion, ranging from the scale of individual buildings to the entirety of the urban fabric. Within this framework, it welcomes contributions from scholars and researchers working in architecture, urban design, landscape architecture, urban and regional planning, environmental engineering, and related disciplines. With the valuable contributions of our chapter authors working in the professional disciplines of landscape architecture, architecture, city and regional planning, urban design and sustainability, we have completed Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience book study has been completed with 24 book chapters. We would like to thank you, our esteemed authors, for their contributions to the preparation of the book. We would also like to thank the editorial board and IKSAD Publishing House. We wish to continue this process we have started in the coming years. In addition, we would like to express our sincere appreciation to Prof. Dr. Atila GÜL, the book coordinator of IKSAD Publishing House, for his guidance and support throughout the publication process. We hope that our book ‘Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience’ will be helpful to the readers. Best regards. 15.10.2025 EDITORS Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ EDITORS Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ AUTHORS The authors were listed in alphabetical order Alper ÇABUK Ayça GÜLTEN Ayşe ÖZYETGİN ALTUN Ayşe Özge ŞİMŞEK SOYSAL Ayşegül TANRIVERDİ KAYA Demet EROL Deniz DEMİRARSLAN Ebru Vesile ÖCALIR Eda ŞENTÜRK Elif Kübra ÖZTÜRK Emine BAYDAN Esra KESKİN Feran AŞUR Feyza Sena ŞENOCAK Filiz KARAKUŞ Furkan AKDEMİR Gencay ÇUBUK Gülşah BİLGE ÖZTÜRK Halil DUYMUŞ Hamza ALTAŞ Hande AKARCA İnci OLGUN Kemal Mert ÇUBUKÇU Kumru ÇILGIN Mehmet Akif IRMAK Mehmet Emin DAŞ Mehtap ÖZENEN KAVLAK Merve ALICI AKA Mesut GÜZEL Muhammed Akif AÇIKGÖZ Muhammed Emir GÖRAL Murat YEŞİL Olcay Türkan YURDUGÜZEL Özge DÜZGÜN EREKİNCİ Pervin YEŞİL Rabia Nurefsan ACIKGOZ Sedef ŞENDOĞDU Seher Simay KUŞOĞLU Serim DİNÇ Sevilay YILDIZ Sinem SEYHAN Şevval ERGİNDOĞAN Şuheda ALTUNOK Temuçin Göktürk SEYHAN Tuba Nur OLĞUN Tuna BATUHAN Ufuk Teoman AKSOY Yusuf Eminoğlu REVIEWER LIST The authors were listed in alphabetical order Aslıhan TIRNAKÇI Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Atila GÜL Süleyman Demirel University Ayşe Kalaycı ÖNAÇ İzmir Katip Çelebi University Bige ŞİMŞEK İLHAN İstanbul Medipol University Burcu YILMAZEL Eskişehir Technical University Eda KOÇAK Siirt University Ekrem BAHADIR Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University Elif KUTAY KARAÇOR İstanbul Technical University Hakan ARSLAN Ondokuz Mayıs University Hilal TURGUT Karadeniz Technical University Meliha AKLIBAŞINDA Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Murat AKTEN Süleyman Demirel University Nihan Sümeyye GÜNDOĞDU Atlas University Okan Murat DEDE Amasya University Ömer Lütfü ÇORBACI Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Selcen Nur Erikci Çelik Beykoz University Sibel AKTEN Isparta Unıversıty Of Applıed Scıences Sinem ÖZDEDE Pamukkale University Şeyma ŞENGÜR Ordu University Turgut KALAY Kütahya Dumlupınar University Tendü Hilal GÖKTUĞ Aydın Adnan Menderes University 454 1. Introduction Rural architecture, which holds a significant place among cultural assets worthy of preservation, is highly important in terms of reflecting the authentic fabric of a settlement. Analyzing rural settlements through their residential structures provides valuable insights into the region’s traditional architecture, way of life, and cultural characteristics. However, it is possible to state that architectural examples belonging to rural settlements—important representations of cultural heritage—as well as values reflecting daily life, beliefs, and traditions, are entering a process of disappearance without being documented. Since the second half of the 20th century, increased mechanization, the shift of populations dependent on agriculture into other sectors, and the growing demands for improved health services, infrastructure, education, and comfort have led to demographic changes in rural areas, even resulting in significant population decline. Although inventory and documentation efforts related to rural architecture in recent years are promising, they have not been sufficient to prevent the deterioration of the architectural fabric of settlements. The negative state of preservation in rural settlements and the lack of control over new constructions are causing many rural areas in Anatolia to suffer increasing damage day by day. In this study, Topçu Village—located in the central district of Yozgat Province—has been selected as the study area. The primary aim is to identify architectural elements worthy of preservation that reflect the rural architectural characteristics of the Central Anatolia Region. The existing fabric and conservation issues of the settlement, which does not possess 455 any protected area or registered heritage status, have been identified, and suggestions have been developed accordingly. Through on-site investigations in Topçu Village, the current map of the settlement has been updated, and analyses of the building stock under specific categories have been conducted. In addition, plan schemes have been prepared for accessible residential buildings that display rural characteristics, in an attempt to reveal the typological features of the settlement. The analyses and plan schemes prepared to reveal the unique values of the settlement also aim to establish the originality of the study itself. Thus, the study aims to highlight the importance of Topçu Village’s rural architectural features that are worthy of preservation, to provide a basis for potential conservation practices, and to take a pioneering step toward protection by documenting structures that are at risk of disappearing. 1.1. Rural Architectural Heritage and Its Conservation According to the definition in the Encyclopedia of Architecture, rural architecture includes all houses and other buildings constructed by the people themselves. Also referred to by various terms such as vernacular architecture, anonymous architecture, architecture without architects, or folk architecture, rural architecture refers to construction that reflects local and regional characteristics (Dırık, 2025; Rudofsky, 1964; Hasol, 1979; Bektaş, 2002). This form of production, which reflects the cultural features of a settlement, is widely found across Anatolia in various systems and characteristics. 456 Rural architecture, with building types that vary according to region, is shaped by numerous components such as the use of open and closed spaces, topography, climate, spatial organization, façade character, traditional lifestyles and production methods, beliefs, and geographic location. These components not only influence the design of functionally diverse rural structures but also affect the formation of auxiliary units attached to residential buildings (Dırık, 2025; ÇEKÜL, 2012). In rural architecture, where functionality is prioritized over aesthetics, it is possible to consider these buildings as significant examples of architecture where the architecture itself precedes the architect, and where the users’ connection and respect for nature and their environment is clearly evident (Yıldız, 2019). When examining rural settlements in Anatolia, it is observed that the settlements were planned with a central square in mind, around which commercial, religious, and public bath buildings were located, and with access routes extending from the square to the residential structures. The layout of the houses was decided based on the area’s topographic features, climate, environmental conditions, and cost—determining, for example, whether buildings would be constructed in attached or detached styles, and which direction transportation axes would follow (Kucak Toprak, 2020; Muşkara, 2017). One of the fundamental features of rural architecture is the use of natural building materials sourced from nearby areas, which significantly contributes to ecological and sustainable construction. Rural architecture is typically produced by local craftsmen without the involvement of architects, and the exact builders of many of these examples are generally 457 unknown (Genç, 2019; ÇEKÜL, 2012; Rudofsky, 1964; Bektaş, 2001; Kucak Toprak, 2020). Rural architecture must be evaluated not only in terms of individual buildings but also with regard to the use of open spaces, shared social spaces, streets, and the relationships among the structures. Accordingly, rural settlements should be considered as a whole—together with the qualities of their buildings, settlement features, and socio-cultural fabric (Genç, 2019). Anatolia is the region where traditional rural architectural culture is richest in Turkey; however, in large cities that are constantly developing and transforming due to various factors, the conservation of rural architectural heritage is becoming increasingly difficult over time (Muşkara, 2017). Issues surrounding rural architecture and its conservation are interconnected with the broader multidimensional problems affecting rural areas. The rural population and rural architecture are directly influenced by the transformations brought about by globalization. These issues are not unique to Turkey but are also observed in many developed countries today (ÇEKÜL, 2012; Muşkara, 2017). Rural settlements, which have traditionally been shaped in harmony with their geography, now face many conservation challenges due to everchanging and diversifying needs (Aktaş, 2019). These problems can be both social and economic in nature, and they can significantly harm the architectural fabric of the settlements. Due to reasons such as lack of employment opportunities, inadequate social amenities, unmet technological needs, and a decline in agricultural and livestock activities, rural-to-urban migration is widespread. As residents move to urban areas, 458 unused houses begin to deteriorate and, over time, this process accelerates, leading to their complete disappearance (Eres, 2016; Tunca & Akyüz Levi, 2020). Preventing the deterioration of rural settlements is crucial for keeping cultural values alive, making it essential to develop solutions to the conservation problems faced in these areas (Aktürk, 2021; Naycı, 2012). 2. Material and Method The selected subject of this study, Topçu Village in Yozgat, is a rural settlement affiliated with the central district (Figure 1). As an exemplary case in the context of rural architectural heritage conservation, the village reflects the typical characteristics of rural settlements through its settlement decisions, construction system, material use, spatial organization, and façade character. The content of this study has been shaped within the scope of the Rural Design Guide prepared for the course MİMYL 526.1 – Rural Architectural Heritage and Conservation Problems, part of the graduate curriculum of the Institute of Graduate Studies at Yozgat Bozok University during the Spring Term of 2024–2025. Within the course framework, various tasks were carried out to identify the current structure of the settlement. These included updating the existing base map, conducting several analyses (such as solid-void relations, function, construction system, building materials, number of floors, roof type and covering material, usage status, damage assessment, heritage value status, and conservation suggestions), identifying physical and social changes, and determining the necessary boundaries for physical and social interventions in the settlement’s development process. 459 The work prepared for the course was intended to be shared on a broader platform in order to raise awareness, document the settlement, and provide conservation proposals. The study covers the entirety of Topçu Village. Accordingly, data were collected from all buildings that were accessible during the analysis and documentation phases. As for the methodology, it involves obtaining data through a literature review on the settlement and conducting on-site investigations. A current version of the base map obtained from Yozgat Municipality was updated during fieldwork, and the analysis data were overlaid onto this updated map. Schematics were created and presented to determine the plan typologies of residential units and their plot layout decisions. Additionally, spatial changes experienced by residential units over time were added to the plan diagrams and documented accordingly. These transformations were evaluated within the scope of conservation issues, and suggestions were developed based on the findings. 3. Rural Architectural Heritage of Topçu Village In order to identify the rural architectural fabric and characteristics of Topçu Village, both field surveys and a literature review were conducted. Although sufficient information about the historical background of the settlement itself could not be obtained, data related to the city center were used as supportive references. As part of the on-site studies conducted in the village, the current settlement layout and its relationship with the natural environment were examined. Public common areas, functions (such as residential buildings, auxiliary structures, places of worship, education, and commerce, as well as open spaces like fields and threshing areas), construction systems, usage 460 status of buildings, building materials, roof typologies and materials, building damage, conservation status, the relationship of buildings to roads, and the hierarchical structure of roads were all identified and recorded on updated base maps. To determine the residential plan schemes of the settlement, floor plans were drawn for accessible residential buildings, and their spatial organization was analyzed. Auxiliary structures located on the same plots as the residences were also added to the plan diagrams, revealing the functional and spatial characteristics of rural land use. 3.1. The Fabric and History of Topçu Village Anatolia, which has hosted many different civilizations, has a deep-rooted history. The city of Yozgat is also a settlement with a rich heritage, with remains and artifacts found in regions such as Alişar, Alacahöyük, Kerkenes, Çengeltepe, and Tavium/Atvium, dating back to approximately 3000 BCE. The Turks began settling in this region following the Battle of Malazgirt in 1071. This settlement, which started during the Seljuk period, continued through the Beyliks period and the Ottoman period, evolving into its present-day form (https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/yozgat). Topçu Village is located on the Yozgat-Boğazlıyan road (Atatürk Road) and is affiliated with the central district of Yozgat Province. According to a local story, the village was named Topçu (meaning “artilleryman”) because soldiers sent to war during the Turkish War of Independence were assigned to artillery units (Erdogan Budak, 2021). Topçu Village is situated 17 km from the city center and is part of the central district. It lies along the Kayseri road, very close to the highway. A water channel that divides the settlement into two parts running northeast 461 to southwest is located at the lower elevation between slopes rising to the northwest and southeast. Research indicates that this channel was built to prevent floods and potential damage caused by heavy rainfall (Erdogan Budak, 2021). The village settlement is located on the slope in a manner that aligns with the topography, considering the direction of the slope, the view, and the relationship between streets and buildings. In Topçu Village, the economy was traditionally based on agriculture and animal husbandry during both summer and winter seasons when villagers lived in the village year-round. Over time, the younger population became less interested in farming and livestock, leading to migration from the village to the city. As the population decreased and due to the village’s proximity to the city center, the local health clinic and its lodging, as well as the primary school building, have lost their functions and are no longer in use. Due to migration, animal husbandry has nearly disappeared. Those villagers who remain in the village mainly during the summer, who engage in agriculture (such as chickpeas and wheat), do so not for economic gain but for their own consumption. In the center of Topçu Village, there is the Topçu Mosque (Figure 2) and the village hall. Figure 1. Village Settlement Plan Figure 2. Topçu Mosque 462 The climate of Topçu Village generally resembles that of Yozgat, with cold and harsh winters and hot, dry summers. The village’s location between two hills protects it from Yozgat’s colder climate and positively influences agricultural activities. During the summer, especially around holiday periods such as religious festivals, the village population increases. Vehicle access to the village is via Atatürk Road. The main road is asphalted, while the internal village roads are mostly stabilized earth roads, with paved roads using interlocking stone blocks in front of commercial units. All buildings within the village, including houses, coops, barns, wood storage areas, and tandır ovens, constitute the rural architectural heritage of Topçu Village. When examining the local residential buildings, adobe (mudbrick) was commonly used as the construction material due to its easy availability and insulating properties. Roof materials consist mainly of tiles, with roof types such as gable and hipped roofs preferred due to the climate. The preferred construction method was the load-bearing (masonry) system. Over time, as settlement progressed, reinforced concrete construction systems have gradually replaced adobe load-bearing structures. The deterioration of existing adobe buildings, lack of preservation efforts, and alterations made to structures—along with the addition of new buildings that do not conform to the existing fabric—pose significant obstacles to the conservation of the rural architectural heritage. 3.2. Current Status Assessment Studies of Topçu Village 3.2.1. Building Usage Status The village settlement is located southwest of the Yozgat-Kayseri highway. A water channel divides the settlement into two parts, and access 463 across the channel is provided by bridges where the roads intersect the channel (Figures 3 and 5). All buildings within the settlement have gardens of various sizes. The placement of buildings on their parcels is either facing the street or positioned freely within the garden. There are also examples of contiguous (attached) buildings facing the street (Figure 4). Outside of the building parcels, there are public open spaces equipped with urban furniture that allows for communal use. Among these, three neighborhood fountains located in different parts of the settlement are actively used (Figure 5). Due to the sloping terrain of the village, the main access routes run parallel to the slope. Streets perpendicular to the slope are quite short and have a suitable gradient for use. The streets vary in width, and on the wider streets, there are seating and resting areas intended for communal use. The village economy is based on agriculture and animal husbandry, and farmland and dairies form the boundaries of the settlement. A cemetery is located on the southeastern edge of the settlement, and there are also areas identified as threshing floors (Figure 3). 470 The village’s location in a harsh climate plays a decisive role in the shape and roofing material choices of the buildings’ roofs. Accordingly, in the settlement, hipped (kırma) or gable (beşik) roofs are commonly used, while shed roofs (sundurma çatı) are observed in the outbuildings. As for roofing materials, tiles (kiremit) are predominantly used, although one building was found to have a metal (sheet) roof (Figure 12.). Figure 12. Roof Material and Type Analysis Map 3.2.5. Quality and Conservation Status Analysis There are no officially registered or protected buildings in Topçu Village. However, due to the importance and value these buildings carry as part of the rural architectural heritage, they are considered worthy of preservation. Within this scope, buildings that stand out in terms of plan layout, construction system, material usage, façade character, and decorative details have been evaluated and documented as qualified structures. 471 Buildings constructed with reinforced concrete or prefabricated materials have been classified as unqualified, as they lack rural characteristics. According to the Quality Analysis Map, nearly half of the buildings are classified as qualified structures. This situation highlights the importance of emphasizing the rural architectural value of the settlement (Figure 14.). Figure 13. Garden Gates One of the characteristic features of the settlement is the presence of garden gates at almost every house. These gates vary in size depending on the user. The number of gate leaves changes according to the intended use—single-leaf gates for people and double-leaf gates for animals. The gates are designed quite simply, featuring metal studs on their surfaces (Figure 13). 472 Figure 14. Qualitative Analysis Map Figure 15. Conservation Status Analysis Map In the Conservation Status Analysis prepared to determine the protection status of village houses, it was found that structures identified as qualified 473 should be preserved due to their rural heritage value. Additionally, newly constructed buildings that are still in use and do not contradict the fabric of the settlement were also deemed necessary to be protected (Figure 15). Buildings for which it is considered possible to harmonize with the fabric through certain interventions were classified as “can be preserved and continue to be used.” Thus, it will be possible to achieve harmony with the settlement fabric by removing additions, making changes in facade openings and details, and using different materials. 3.2.6. Building Damage Status and Usage Analysis Compared to many rural settlements in Anatolia, Topçu Village is in an advantageous position regarding the continued use of its buildings. Its proximity to the city center allows most residential buildings to be used seasonally. Users often have second homes in the city center to meet their educational, health, and comfort needs, which shortens the duration of use of the village houses. Those with second homes in the city center use their village houses during different periods of the year, especially when climatic conditions are suitable, such as summer, school holidays, summer vacations, official holidays, etc. They also use the house gardens for winter preparations and planting activities. While a small number of residential and other functional buildings are actively used, there are also some buildings that are unused or in ruins due to migration or neglect (Figure 16). 474 Figure 16. Usage Status Analysis Map Figure 17. Damage Status Analysis Map In the damage status analysis, buildings were evaluated structurally as ‘ruined, damaged, moderately damaged, and undamaged.’ Buildings that 475 are structurally standing were classified as ‘undamaged,’ those with structural problems but still usable as ‘moderately damaged,’ buildings physically standing but with some elements damaged or unusable as ‘damaged,’ and buildings that are unusable as ‘ruined.’ The high number of undamaged or moderately damaged buildings is quite promising for the settlement (Figure 17.). 3.3. Documentation Study of Topçu Village To identify the plan schemes of the houses in Topçu Village and determine the units within the parcels and the typological group they belong to, 15 buildings were accessed and their plan schemes and parcel usages were prepared (Figure 18.). Although the houses face the street in the parcels, access to the houses is always through the garden. Within the parcel, there are annex units such as wood storage, tandır (traditional oven), WC, poultry house, and barn. In single-story houses, annexes are located freely or attached to the building within the parcel, while in two-story houses, the ground floor is used as barn, hayloft, and wood storage. All houses and other annex units are accessed and used through the garden. The house plan schemes conform to the internal sofa (inner courtyard) plan typologies defined by Sedad Hakkı Eldem. In single-story houses, there is direct access to the building. In the plan scheme where the entrance area is the sofa, rooms are accessed from the sofa. In two-story houses, the sofa is reached from a semi-open area accessed by stairs, and the rooms are again accessed from the sofa. Both singleand two-story houses typically have two or four rooms accessible from the sofa. The third plan scheme has been included in the internal sofa type, considering the village's climate. Due to parcel size or the position of adjacent buildings, it is 476 thought that the rooms are attached only to one side of the sofa. Accordingly, it was determined that Topçu Village’s plan schemes are internal sofa types. The internal sofa plans are shaped by the use of two or four rooms attached on one or two sides of the sofa. Over time, the houses have undergone changes due to user interventions for comfort and needs. In addition to the used plan schemes without any modification to the sofa, there are also house plans where WC or kitchen has been added to continue use. In plan schemes where both WC and kitchen are added, one unit is located in the sofa, and the other is added in the area where rooms meet. Figure 18. Houses Documented in the Study In Figure 18, the houses for which plan schemes were prepared are numbered and identified. Among these structures, numbers 1 and 6 correspond to Plan Scheme 1. Houses numbered 11, 12, 14, and 15 align with Plan Scheme 4. Additionally, house number 7 matches Plan Scheme 477 2, number 8 matches Plan Scheme 5, number 9 corresponds to Plan Scheme 6, number 10 to Plan Scheme 3, and number 13 matches Plan Scheme 7. The differences among the seven prepared plan schemes do not affect their typological group; however, they were drawn separately and prepared due to additions made and variations in the ancillary units located within the parcels (Table 1). Table 1. Plan Type Examples Plan 1 Plan 2 478 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5 479 Plan 6 Plan 7 4. Conservatıon Problems of Topçu Vıllage The rural houses of Topçu Village, which hold significant value due to their rural architectural heritage characteristics, face various challenges in terms of preservation. These challenges can be categorized as sociocultural and socio-economic. Under these main headings, it is also possible to mention certain issues caused by natural conditions and user-related factors. Due to the aforementioned problems, buildings are sustaining damage, and over time, irreversible consequences may arise (Figure 19). Figure 19. Collapsed Adobe Structures 486 believed that contributions can be made to safeguard rural cultural values and ensure the continuity of cultural heritage footprints. 487 Acknowledgements and Information Note The article complies with national and international research and publication ethics. Ethics Committee approval was not required for the study. Author Contribution and Conflict of Interest Declaration Information All authors contributed equally to the article. 488 References Aktaş, Z. (2019). Orta Karadeniz Bölümü’ nde Kırsal Mimarinin Koruma Sorunlarının Samsun İli Özelinde İncelenmesi, Eskişehir Teknik Üniversitesi Yayınları. s. 17-21. Aktürk, İ. (2021). Kırsal alanlarda koruma sorunları: Bursa Cumalıkızık Köyü örneği. Journal of Environmental and Natural Studies, 3(2), 214-223. Bektaş, C. (2001). Halk Yapı Sanatı. İstanbul: Literatür Yayınları. Budak.E. (2021). Yozgat Topçu Köyü’nde Gezdim - 2021. Yozgat: Youtube [Video recording]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdU33IH6vrA. ÇEKÜL Vakfı. (2012). Anadolu’da Kırsal Mimarlık. Bursa Büyükşehir Belediyesi Yayınları. Dirik, A. (2025). Kapadokya Bölgesinde Kırsal Mimari Mirasın Korunma Sorunları Ürgüp Karain Köyü Örneği. Kapadokya Üniversitesi Yayınları. s. 227-241. Eres, Z. (2016). Türkiye’de geleneksel köy mimarisini koruma olasılıkları. Ege Mimarlık, s. 8-13. Genç, U. D. (2019). Kırsal Yerleşimlerin Koruma Sorunlarının İrdelenmesi ve Model Geliştirilmesi [Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi. Hasol D. (1979). Mimarlık Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Yapı Endüstri Merkezi Yayınları. Kuçak Toprak, G. (2020). İlyasbey/Yarhisar Köyü’nün (Bilecik) değerleri ve kırsal mimari özellikleri. Bilecik eyh Edebali niversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5 (2), 309-341. DOI: 10.33905/bseusbed.785179. Muşkara, Ü. (2017). Kırsal ölçekte geleneksel konut mimarisinin korunması: Özgünlük. Selçuk niversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 37, 437-437. https://doi.org/10.21497/sefad.328638. Naycı, N. (2012). Datça-Bozburun Bölgesi Geleneksel Kırsal Yerleşimlerinin Mimari Özellikleri ve Koruma Sorunları. TÜBAKED, 10, 81-105. 489 Rodulfsky, B. (1964). Architecture without architects; non-pedigreed architecture. New york:MoMa Pub. Tunca, U. D. ve Akyüz Levi, E. (2020). Kırsal yerleşimlerin koruma sorunları: İzmir örneği. Ege-Mim, 4(108), 86-93. Yıldız, F. Ö. (2019). Kırsal Mimaride Koruma Sorunları-Mardin Alımlı Köyü Örneği [Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf Üniversitesi. 490 Şevval ERGİNDOĞAN E-mail: [email protected] Educational Status: License: Architecture Degree: Graduate Student Professional experiences: Graduate Student Hamza ALTAŞ E-mail: [email protected] Educational Status: License: Architecture Degree: Graduate Student Professional experiences: Graduate Student Assist. Prof. Dr. Olcay Türkan YURDUGÜZEL E-mail: [email protected] Educational Status: License: Architecture Degree: PhD Professional experiences: Assist. Prof. Dr.