3Sorumlu Y Bahriye Kent kültü dir. Çalışm mevcut du görüntüler Anahtar K The histor protected Agora and using aeria Key Word Introduc The inve portant to tify ours includes nomic str sibility o condition ly changi ed as out in the pas Accordin ments” a which cre which in the same (Resuloğl historical for their thetics b 2006). The conc taken pla the value had been Yazar:bayriye. İzmir İli e GÜLGÜN1,3, B 1Ege Un 2E ürünü ve kimliğ ma kapsamında urumun değerle ri kullanılarak g Kelimeler: Arke A Research S rical and archeo and preserved f d Kadifekale ar al photos and s ds: Archeologica ction estigations of ools which hel elves. In citi many details ructure, philo
f past civiliza ns, traditions, p ing; the histor tdoor museum st (Ahunbay, 1 ng to Akçura are the collect eate the specia
themselves ar time historic lu, 2005). A l environment importance i but also their cept of protect ace since anci s called “cultu n made up by
linde Bazı Ark Bahar TÜRKYI niversity, Facul Ege University, (G ğini yansıtan ta a, İzmir kentind ndirilmesi, GIS gerçekleştirilmi eolojik sit, antro Study about A ological environ for the followin rcheological site satellite images. al site, anthrop
old cities an lp to understa ies, the histo relating to th sophy of life ations. In a w production tec rical urban spa ms which show 1996; Ömeroğ a (1973), “H tive evaluatio al characters o re not monum cal, traditional According to ts are to be p in archeology r folkloric v tion is a pheno ient times. Th ural and natur
humans them du.tr www.zira Selçu Selçuk Tarım v 25 (4) ISS keolojik Sit Al ILMAZ TAHTA1 Fund lty of Agricultur Faculty of Agr Geliş Tarihi: 13 rihi ve arkeoloj de yer alan Ag S programları a iştir. Elde edile opojenik baskıla Anthropogeni
nments are imp ng generations. es in Izmir betw . The obtained d ogenic impacts
d districts are and today and orical environ he social and and aesthetic world where l chniques are r aces can be ac w the way of l ğlu, 2006). Historical Env on of the elem of towns and ments but posse
l and visual v Ahunbay (1 protected not y, history and values (Ömer omenon which he conservatio ral” heritage w mselves or wit aat.selcuk.edu uk Üniversites ve Gıda Biliml 4): (2011) 72-7 SN:1309-0550 lanlarına Ant 1, Mustafa Tolg da ÜNAL ANKA re, Department riculture, Depar 3.04.2011, Kabu Özet ojik çevrelerin k gora ve Kadifek aracılığıyla 198 en veriler ışığın
ar, tarihi çevre, ic Impacts on
Abstract portant places f . Within the con ween 1987, 199
data and result s, historical env e im- iden-nment d eco-c sen-living rapid- ccept-living viron-ments cities ess at values 996), only d aes-roğlu, h had on of which th the coop of ye in ou shou ing entir its p arch 2005 Acco relat Entit citie uct o to th tectu perio even serve mou “Arc taini prod wate cultu whic u.tr/ojs si leri Dergisi 78 0 tropolojik Bas ga ESETLİLİ2, İ KAYA1 t of Landscape A rtment of Soil S ul Tarihi:29.07 korunması ve g kale akeolojik s 87, 1997 ve 200 da yapıcı öneri , uzaktan algıla Some Archeo for the culture a
ntext of the stud 97 and 2005 we ts were used to p vironment, geog peration of na ears of civiliza ur age of hum uld be emphas
with its aims re world. The ractices can b eological sit 5). ording to the ting to the Pr ties; “Conserv s and the rem of various civ he present day ural and simil od, as well a nts took place ed for the na us, 1983). chaeological S ng any type ducts, whether er, of ancient c ural character ch have surviv skılar Üzerine İpek ALTUĞ TU Architecture, İz Science, İzmir/T 7.2011) gelecek nesillere sit alanlarında 05 yıllarına ait iler geliştirilmiş ama sistemleri. ological Sites and the identity dy, the present ere determined i put forward con graphical inform ature during th ation, adopted manity, and is sized. This ph s, methods a concept of co be seen in dif es, natural e 3rd article reservation of vation Site” mains of cities vilizations fro y, reflect the s lar characteris as areas wher e and areas w atural features Sites” are sett
of cultural en r above or belo
civilization an istics of the e ved from the
e Bir Çalışma URAN1, Erden A zmir/Türkiye Türkiye re aktarılması g gözlenen deği hava fotoğrafla ştir. s in Izmir City y of cities which status and the in GIS aided pr onstructive prop mation systems. he history of d as a common s a phenomen henomenon is and applicatio onservation is fferent fields s sites etc. (R of Law Num f Cultural an is defined as s which being om prehistoric social, econom stics of their ere important which need t s found there tlements and a ntity which re ow the ground nd social, econ eras of their emergence of a AKTAŞ1, gerekmekte-şimlerin ve arı ve uydu y h have to be changes in rograms by posals. . thousands n problem non which s develop-ons in the s wide and such as as Resuloğlu, mber 2863 nd Natural s meaning the prod-c times up mic, archi-existence historical to be pre-e (Anony-areas con-eflects the d or under nomic and existence, f mankind
up to the “1st Deg with the are to be Degree A preserved are to be which, w projects, And “3rd logical ar ted in lin 1999). Conserva detailed quality ra carried o beroğlu 2 mation sy coherent termining tion proce The name city's lon began to emerged Izmir had criteria o at the po meets the While th Turkey's also true since the torical id and Yılm This rese the probl eral. Also tural tran ic impact Izmir tak be able to Material Material The resea – 38º 25' 27" E) an N – 38º 2 09' 06" E Agora Di logical si degree ar tion area, present (Anon gree Archaeol exception of e preserved w Archaeological d, but whose c determined b with the excep are to be pres d Degree Arc reas where ne ne with prote ation aimed d and numerou ather than all out (Erdem et
2003 remote s ystems are ide data which a g landscape ch ess (Doygun e e "Smyrna" co g history, and be used in the as settlement d begun to sh f a town, situ oint where the e land (Yetkin he historical beautiful citie that, having 1950's, the c dentity is in d maz, 2011).
earch has been lems relating o the aim of th nsformation, w ts, on two diff king changes o o suggest solu l and Method
arch areas are 01" N and lon nd Kadifekale 24' 44" N and E).
istrict compos ites and Kadif rcheological s , were chosen nymous, 1999 logical Sites” scientific con without any m l Sites” are ar conditions of by conservatio ption of scien served without chaeological S ew arrangemen ection use rul development p
us surveying sorts of plan t al. 2003). A sensing and G eal tools for g are needed in haracteristics et al. 2003).
ontinued to ex d after its con e form of Izmi t, by the year how itself as uated in what e bay to whic n and Yılmaz, environment es, adds furthe
been the reci city's wealth o danger of disa n carried out b to archaeolo he study was which is one o ferent historic over the years utions. d e Agora (latitu ngitudes (27º e Districts (lat d longitudes 2 sed of 1st and fekale Distric site and arche n to exemplify 9). ” are areas w nservation pro modification. reas which mu protection an on committee ntific conserv t any modifica Sites” are arch nts may be pe ings (Anonym plans require works in va nning works, According to Geographical i getting ordered analyzing an and change d xist throughou quest by the T ir. From the ti rs around 800 one fulfillin is today Bay h it gives its n 2011). of Izmir, on er to its value ipient of migr of history and appearing. (Y both in order t gical sites in examine the s of the anthropo al environmen s as a basis, th udes 38º 25' 1 08' 09" E – 27 titudes 38º 24 27º 08' 33" E 3rd degree arc ct, composed eological cons y protected are which, ojects, “2nd ust be nd use s and vation ation. haeo- ermit-mous, more arious to be Ber- infor-d aninfor-d nd de- detec-ut the Turks ime it 0 B.C ng the yraklı, name ne of e, it is ration d his-Yetkin to set gen- struc- ogen-nts in hen to 11" N 7º 08' 4' 54" – 27º cheo-of 1st serva-eas in Izmi other 1/25 phot 1987 the s (stud tuted dia 6 Agor Izmi man a com impo antiq (Yet The grou an i held exca emer (Kar the clean these below cient Figu Kadi The know mean the stron B.C. beca in H Its s in do
ir. Also their r reason to be 000 scale top tos taken in 1 7 and 2005 w study, right al dy area). Also d by Izmir Me 6.0 were used ra District ir gained impo Empire and mmercial city ortant and hi quities which tkin and Yılma
Agora, which und passagewa important cen and people b avations carri rged as being rayiğit, 2005). form of exc ning and env e being the A w the basilica t bazaar (Anon ure 1. Genera 2008). ifekale Distric name used wn today as K ns "summit". Alexandrian ng in every pe and has a st ause of this str Helenistic, Rom ub-terranean ocuments to th importance in chosen as res pographic map 1997 and sa ere used as re long with the the programs etropolitan Mu in the study. ortance during developed its y. The Agora istorical rema have surviv az 2011). h was linked t ays thousands nter where po bought and sol
ed out recen g the largest Work on the avation, resto ironmental pl Agora square, t a, the western nymous, 2006 al view of A ct in ancient so Kadifekale is Kadifekale, Period, has eriod of histor trategic impo rategic quality man, Byzantin cisterns and he fact that S in city identit search areas. ps, 1/10000 sc atellite images esearch mater main researc s City Guide 2 unicipality an g the period o s characteristic is foremost a ains of Rom ved to the pr to Kadifekale s of years ago olitical meeti ld goods. As ntly. Izmir A agora know e Agora is con oration, arch lanning in fiv the north gate n structure an 6) (Figure 1). Agora (Goog ources for th Pagos, which which was fo been promin ry since the 3 ortance (Figur y that it came ne and Ottom references en St. Polycaro's y was the cale aerial s taken in rial during h material 2.0 consti-nd Geome-of the Ro-c of being among the an period resent day by under-o, became ings were a result of Agora has wn to date ntinuing in aeological ve places, e, the area nd the an-gle Earth, he summit h in Greek founded in nent as a 3rd century re 2). It is to be used man times. ncountered grave was
at one tim important Christian (Karayiği Figure 2. As a resu sion, who tions beg reached a as the un of the Fo (Baran an Method The resea rectificati aerial ph sensing t pogenic i the curren and the la The study the collec for the ye Data coll • Recti and satell Using Ge ically rec (UTM) c image of age of 2 graphic m • Scree ages: Kadifeka each year digitized. • Censu me with in the t from the p nity besides i it 2005). General view ult of the buil ose number in ginning in the a state where authorized bu ortress is also nd Çiçek, 200 arch method ion and digit hotos and sat techniques in
impacts on th nt status and and use during y was consist ction of data r ears 1987, 199 lection ification of to lite images: eomedia 6.0, t ctified to the coordinate sys f 1987, aerial 2005 were ge map. en digitizing ale and Agora
r and also th . us of building e fortress wall oint of view ts other histo w of Kadifekal lding of house ncreased rapid e 1960's, toda it is unable t uilding seen ar seen to have 6). was based on talization of t tellite images order to dete he research ar the change in g the years 19 of two main relating to the 97, 2005 and t opographic m topographic m Universal Tr stem. Subsequ photo of 199 eographically of aerial phot a District’s to he land use ty types: ls make Kadif of the histo orical signific le. es without pe dly with the m ay the Fortres
o breathe. As round it, the i become inha n the geograp topographic m by using re ermine the an reas by exam n total surface 987 – 1997 – 2 stages, these b e existing situ their analysis. maps, aerial p map was geog ransverse Mer uently the sat 7 and satellit rectified to to and satelite tal surface ar ypes in 2005 fekale ory of cance ermis- migra-ss has s well inside abited phical maps, emote nthro-mining e area 2005. being uation photos graph-rcator tellite te im- topo-e im-rea in were The ing Izmi Data • S estab betw • T with deter • T depe the p Disc Agor In 2 area logic m² ( and Mea whic (3.4 built Of t serve arch vesti and from gree total resid With 14.4 ties, denti ure 3 Figu quantity of bu on the progr ir Metropolitan a analyse Spatial inters blish the cha ween the years The distributi hin Kadifekale rmined and th The incremen ending on the protected area cussion ra District 005, in Agor within the b cal site, which
8.3 %) were d 5754.7 m² (% anwhile, on t ch has a surfa
%) open gre t-on area were he total 4630 ed within the eological site igated ancien public prem m the point of archeologica were observ dential buildin hin the 3rd de % (58) of the 0.5 % (2) bu ial buildings a 3). ure 3. Number uilding types w ram City Gui
n Municipality ection metho nges in surfa 1987 1997 -on of green a e and Agora D he percentages nt of building findings the d were analyze
a and its clos oundaries of h is spread ov determined as % 19.7) as area the 1st degr face area of 6 een area and e detected. 02.94 m2 occu
boundaries o s, when the t nt edifices, c mises are enco f view of quan al site bounda ved to be an ngs and 8.0 % egree archeol e structures we usiness premis and 1.8 % (7) s of building t were examine uide 2.0 cons ty. od in GIS wa ace area that - 2005. area and build District’s in 2 s were calcula g types determ dominant type ed. se vicinity, of the 1st degre ver 29151.8 m s being open g a taken up by ree archeolog 66794.3 m², 2 40548.3 m² upied by buil of the 1st and type of buildi commercial, r ountered. Whe ntity, within t ary 14.0 % ( ntiquities, 78. % (4) public logical site bo were found to b ses, 83.3 % ( ) public build types in Agor ed depend-tituted by as used to t occurred ding areas 2005 were ated. mined and e of use in f the total ee archeo-m², 2408.8 green area buildings. gical site, 2285.9 m² (60.7 %) ldings ob-3rd degree ings is in-residential en studied the 1st de-(7) of the 0 % (40) buildings. oundaries, be antiqui-(334) resi-dings (Fig-a District.
The view The view The view Figure 4. e w of 1987 w of 1997 w of 2005 The site boun examined yea
ndaries of Ago ar
ora District in n each In th in th the y prote lition aries impa 2339 boun 3rd d local twee Tabl Agor 1st D 3rd D Whe whic pacts in 19 with rema ries. that boun cal s Kadi In 2 total cheo 1519 green build tion 1128 (46.7 On t the comm obse the foun 30.0 arch resid publ In K logic falls serva in th he locality of t he 1st degree a years 1987 an ected from an n of buildings s of the site th acts was seen 97.2m2. As to ndary of the A degree arche lity, a change en the years 19 le 1. The total structured a District egree Archeolog Degree Archeolog en the Agora ch have been s are scrutiniz 987 and 1997 hin 1st degree a ained within 3 In the year 2 80.4 % were ndaries, 19.6 % site boundaries ifekale Distric 005, in Kadi area within ological site, 96.9 m2 (18.8 n area and 42 dings. Meanw area, which 89.3 m2 (12.4 7 %) built-on the 47610.2 m 1st and 2nd mercial, resid erved of the 1st degree ar nd to be antiq % (13) public eological con dential buildin ic buildings w Kadifekale, situ cal site bound
within the b ation area, the he northwest s the historical A rcheological s nd 1997 an ar thropogenic im s on the northe he area protect n to increase b o the structura Agora, lying w ological site e of 1272.3 m 987-2005 (Tab l areas in Ago d A 1 gical Site 17 gical Site 44
and the area n protected fr
zed with regar 7 79.4 % of th archeological 3rd degree arch 2005, in a sim within 1st de % remained in s. ct
fekale and its the boundarie which is spr 8%) were dete 225.0 m2 (5.2% while, on the a has a surface %) open gree areas were de m2 area taken degree site b dential and p structures wi cheological quities, 9.0 % c buildings. W nservation ar ngs was 99.6 was 0.4 % (2) uated within t aries, and in i oundaries of ere was found section of the
Agora, which site boundarie rea of 17080.8
mpacts, with ern and weste ted from anth by 6316.4 m al area on the within the lim which surro m2 was encoun ble1) (Figure ora District wh
Areas Not Struct 1987 1997 7080.8 17080.8 443.3 4443.3 as in its clos rom anthropo rd to percenta he protected a site boundarie heological sit milar ratio, it w egree archeolo n 3rd degree ar s close vicini es of the 1st d read over 80 ermined as b %) as area tak archeological e area of 91 en area and 4 etected. up by buildin boundaries, a public buildi ithin the boun
site 6.0 % % (4) comme Within the bou rea, the prop 6 % (457) an
(Figure 5). the first degre its close vicin
the archeolog d to have been e area from th h lies with-es while in 8 m2 were the demo-ern bound-hropogenic m2 to attain e southern mits of the ounds the ntered be-4). hich is not tured (m²) 2005 8 23397.2 5715.6 se vicinity genic im-ges, while areas were es, 20.6 % te bounda-was found ogical site rcheologi-ity, of the degree ar-694.7 m2, eing open ken up by conserva-006.3 m2, 8385.2 m2 ngs within antiquities, ings were ndaries of (26) were ercial, and undaries of portion of nd that of ee archeo-nity, which gical con-n a chacon-nge he point of
view of 1987-200 Figure 5 D Within th years 198 1987, wh ed from s of the 1st %) were boundarie m2 (69.4 impacts w boundarie were with ries. Whe mined th protected 76469.7 logical si were situ cal conse Table 2. T n Kadifekale 1st Degree Archeologic Accordin years 198 gree arch 3606.5 m boundarie Results a As a resu over the anthropogeni 05. . Numbers o District. he site district 87, 1997 and hile 74275.4 m structural imp t degree arche within the a es. On the oth %) of the area were within t es, it was fou hin archeolog en the year 20 hat there was d from anthrop
m2 (67.8 %) ite boundaries uated within th ervation area (
The total area not structured e District Archeological S cal Conservation ng to data, it 87-2005 an ar heological sit m2 within the es were saved and Suggestio
ult of this stu years, in the ic pressure b f building ty which remain d 2005, it wa m2 (69.4 %) of pacts were wit
eological site, archeological her hand, in 19 as protected fr the 1st degree und that 330 gical conserva 005 was exam a general inc pogenic impa were within s, 36279.0 m2 he boundaries Table 2) (Figu s in Kadifekal d Areas 1987 Site 74275.4 Area 32672.2 was observed rea of 2149.3 te boundaries archeological d from anthrop ons
udy it has bee e Agora, the l
between the
ypes in Kadif
ned the same i s observed th f the areas pro thin the bound 32672.2 m2 conservation 997, while 750 from anthropo archeologica 34.0 m2 (30. ation area bou mined, it was d crease in the cts and that, w 1st degree arc 2 (32.2 %) of of the archeo ure 6). le District wh Not Structured 1997 20 75020.4 76 33034.0 36 d that betwee 3 m2 within 1 s and an are l conservation pogenic impac en concluded limits of the years fekale in the hat in otect-daries (30.6 n area 020.4 ogenic al site 6 %) unda- deter-areas while cheo-them ologi-hich is (m²) 005 6469.7 6279.0 en the st de-ea of n area cts. d that; areas prote been uous cons is re save creas 28.6 year on A clud enou vicin The The The Figu ected as 1st an n expanded. E sly carried out stitutes the gre sidential build d from the s sed 37,0 % in % in the 3rd d s 1987 - 2005 Agora District ed that the ugh and the d nity.
view of 1987
view of 1997
view of 2005 ure 6. The site
each exam nd 3rd degree a xcavation and t here. The fo eatest pressure dings. Despite tructural imp n the 1st degree degree archeol 5. Even though have been re conservation district needs boundaries of mined year. archeological d research wo orm of settlem e on the Agor e this fact, the pacts in Agor e archeologica logical site be h the structura educed, it has n efforts are to be protec f Kadifekale D sites have ork contin-ment which ra District e total area ra was in-al site and etween the al impacts been con-still not ct with its District in
B. Gülgün ve ark. / Selçuk Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi 25 (4): (2011) 72-78 In Kadifekale there are no on the border of the 1st
degree archeological site; however, in the archeologi-cal conservation area dwellings constitute the greatest pressure. Nonetheless, thanks to conservation projects which have been constantly on the agenda, the total area saved from the structural impacts was increased 3,0 % in the 1st degree archeological site and 11.0 % in the archeological conservation area between the years 1987 - 2005. But unfortunately within Ka-difekale District, the historical environment has not been planned and laid out in a way suitable for attract-ing the interest of general public.
In Agora and Kadifekale Districts, residential build-ings were observed to exert the greatest structural area pressure. Meanwhile, the structures constituting an-cient edifices come second. It has been seen that the quality of both structure types are very low in the research areas and the preservation of historical envi-ronment in both districts will only be possible with the restoration of these works and with the landscaping of the surrounding area in harmony with the historical fabric.
Agora and Kadifekale Districts which have great im-portance for the identity of the city also have a signifi-cant potential for tourism in the city because of the historical reflections of the places. However, today these properties of the research areas had been over-looked. With the necessary planning and design stud-ies of these areas, they need to be recovered to urban life in harmony with the concept of protection. As mentioned in Doğan (2006), in order for the historical environment to integrate with contemporary economic and social life, taking the course of rehabilitation and exploitation of its tourism potential is one of the ways forward.
In town planning, in conformity with the rules applied in most large cities with a historical past, it is first of all necessary to determine the areas containing antiq-uities which have come to light and have not yet been excavated. These historical monuments should be shown in their unadorned state and their immediate surroundings should be framed by beautiful gardens and views. The monuments should be surrounded by gardens, separating them from vehicle traffic and should be arranged in a way suitable for archaeologi-cal tours. The old and the new city can and must live side by side without encroaching on and without caus-ing harm to one another (Köse, 2007).
With regard to the preservation and handling – down to future generations of the historical and cultural entities which have emerged in our country over thou-sands of years, the point reached as a result of years of continuous neglect and plunder is that of having lost, even if not all of these entities, the greater part of them (Tuncer, 2011).
One of the foremost problems in historical environ-ment conservation is that of ensuring the continuing of
history despite the changing world and living condi-tions (Anıl, 2007). In the process of planning their towns, preserving the heritage of their past and meet-ing new demands, civilized people endeavor to trans-form their cities in a way which is compatible with the past, Due to our country’s special conditions, Tur-key’s cities are undergoing rapid change. In order for this change to have an essence which is regardful of a past stretching over thousands of years, it will be ben-eficial for new generations to know the history of the city in which they live (Yetkin and Yılmaz, 2011). If the problems relating to this subject are examined in the sense of problems in Turkey as a whole, according to Tuncer (2011), in Archaeological Conservation Sites boundaries are indeterminate and change contin-uously. With preservation committee rulings, modifi-cations and transfers of status are made between 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree archaeological sites, which arouse the belief among people that these decisions are “changeable”. Therefore, it is necessary that boundary determinations based on scientific studies be made once and that, unless based on new knowledge and documents or other findings, no change be made to these boundaries (Tuncer, 2011).
Central and local governments have to consider the fact that, the conservation of cultural and historical heritage is a necessity and a responsibility. Also from local to central governments, all the administrators have to work with a common policy
(
Anonymous, 2005)
.References
Anıl, M., 2007. Tarihsel Alanlarda Turizm Olgusunun Tasarım – Koruma İlişkisi Üzerindeki Etkileri: Bodrum Örneği, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Fen Bi-limleri Enstitüsü, Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Bölü-mü, Kentsel Tasarım Anabilim Dalı, Yüksek Li-sans Tezi (Basılmamış), İzmir, 200 s.
Anonymous, 1983. T. C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Kanunu, Kanun No: 2863, Yayımlandığı Resmi Gazete: Ta-rih: 23/7/1983, Sayı: 18113, Tertip: 5, Cilt: 22, Sayfa: 444.
Anonymous, 1999. T. C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Yüksek Ku-rulu İlke Kararı, Arkeolojik Sitler, Koruma ve Kul-lanma Koşulları. Karar No: 658 / Karar Tarihi: 05.11.1999. Ankara.
Anonymous, 2005. Kültürel ve Tarihi Mirasımızı Korumak Zorunluluk Olması Yanısıra Sorumlu-luktur,
TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası Yönetim Kurulu, Planlama, ISSN 1300-7319, 2005 / 1 (31), 128s. Anonymous, 2006. T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı,
B. Gülgün ve ark. / Selçuk Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi 25 (4): (2011) 72-78 İzmir – Agora, http://www.kultur.gov.tr/TR/
bel-ge/1-41252/eski2yeni.html. (Erişim Tarihi: Aralık 2011).
Baran, H. ve Ü. Çiçek, 2006. Kadifekale’nin Durum Değerlendirmesi, İzmir Ticaret Odası,
http://www.izto.org.tr/NR/rdonlyres/BE32F5AA-8A7A-40F0-8D72-D6DF903ED892/9244/ kadife-kale.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: Aralık 2011).
Doğan, A., 2006. Kentsel Doku, Geleneksel Yerel ve Kültürel Özelliklerin Turizm Mekanına ve Türüne Etkileri Ayvalık Örneği, Yıldız Teknik Üniversite-si Mimarlık FakülteÜniversite-si, Yüksek Lisans Tezi (Basıl-mamış), İstanbul, 122 s.
Doygun, H., Berberoğlu, S. ve Alphan, H., 2003. Hatay, Burnaz Kıyı Kumulları Alan Kullanım De-ğişimlerinin Uzaktan Algılama Yöntemi ile Belir-lenmesi. Ekoloji Çevre Dergisi, 12 (48) 4 - 9, Tür-kiye.
Erdem R., Durduran, S., Cay, T., Dülgerler, O. N. and Yıldırım, H. H., 2003. An Experimental Study of GIS-Aided Conversation Development Plan the Case of Sille, Konya. CIPA 2003 XIXth Interna-tional Symposium, 30 September – 04 October, 2003, Antalya, Turkey.
Karayiğit, A., 2005. Kadifekale'nin Sosyo-Ekonomik Profili Ve Sorunları, İzmir Ticaret Odası, http://www.izto.org.tr/NR/rdonlyres/E1A13BFC-
7F56-429D-94F6-407D932A12C6/9249/kalesosyo.pdf. (Erişim Ta-rihi: Aralık 2011).
Köse, N. B., 2007. Kastamonu Taşköprü Tarihi Kent Dokusunun Peyzaj Mimarlığı Açısından Değer-lendirilmesi, Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Bölümü, Yüksek Li-sans Tezi (Basılmamış), Ankara, 184 s.
Ömeroğlu, C., 2006. Antakya Kentinin Özgünlüğü ve Günümüz Koruma Sorunlarının Antakya Kentsel Sit Alanında İrdelenmesi, Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Bö-lümü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi (Basılmamış), Ankara, 197 s.
Resuloğlu, S., 2005. Koruma Olgusu ve Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Kurullarının Yakla-şımları, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Bölümü, Şehir Planlama Anabilim Dalı, Yüksek Lisans Tezi (Ba-sılmamış), İzmir, 198 s.
Tuncer M., 2011. Türkiye’de Tarihsel ve Kültürel Çevreleri Koruma Olgusu, http://www.kentli.org
/makale/m_tuncer6.htm. (Erişim Tarihi: Aralık
2011).
Yetkin, S. ve Yılmaz, F., 2011. İzmir’in Tarihi. İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi. http://www.izmir.bel.tr/
Standart Pages.asp ?menuID=824&MenuName=.
