an analytical approach to sustainable development in turkey
TRANSCRIPT
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
* Correspondence to: Nuray Kizilaslan, Gaziosmanpasa University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics, 60240 Tokat,Turkey. E-mail: [email protected]
Sustainable DevelopmentSust. Dev. 15, 254–266 (2007)Published online 20 December 2006 in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/sd.316
An Analytical Approach to SustainableDevelopment in Turkey
Nuray Kizilaslan,* A. Zafer Gürler and Halil KizilaslanGaziosmanpasa University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics,
Tokat, Turkey
ABSTRACTSustainable development is meeting the expectations and necessities of the currentera and future generations without making any sacrifices. The focus of the sustain-able development concept is humankind. Humankind has the responsibility of pro-tecting the environment it lives in, as much as it has the right to continue living ahealthy productive life in harmony with nature. These responsibilities will be the mainelements in determining continuity. With these aspects in mind, the research dealswith the basic criteria predicted by Meadows on sustainable development. These cri-teria are divided into three: ‘sustainable’, ‘critical’ and ‘destructive’. The first elementevaluated in these predicted criteria is the increase in population. From the pace ofthe population increase observed in Turkey, it can be said that Turkey affects the sus-tainable development in a ‘destructive’ way. Other criteria, such as economic devel-opment, deforestation rate, the area of the forests and the density of the populationshow an inclination towards the ‘critical area’. Turkey, in terms of its agricultural devel-opment, self-sufficiency rate and urban population, is to be found in the sustainabledevelopment range. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
Received 08 June 2006; revised 25 September 2006; accepted 13 October 2006
Keywords: sustainable development; population increase; economic development; deforestation rate; urban population; self-
sufficiency rate
Introduction
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IS DEFINED AS DEVELOPMENT THAT MEETS THE EXPECTATIONS AND
necessities of the current era and future generations without making any sacrifices. In this
context, three factors, namely economical, social and environmental factors, can not be
overlooked.
The concept of sustainable development is the result of the growing awareness of the global links
between mounting environmental problems, socio-economic issues to do with poverty and inequality
and concerns about a healthy future for humanity (Hopwood et al., 2005).
An Analytical Approach to Sustainable Development in Turkey 255
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 254–266 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/sd
The approaches regarding the sustainable development concept at an international level were first
introduced at a United Nations Environmental and Economic Development conference in Rio de Janeiro
in 1992. At the conference, all the sub-titles of environmental and economic development strategies
were carefully observed and a 21st century agenda in which the reciprocal influences of these strategies
were questioned was set. In the 2002 Johannesburg Sustainable Development Political Report, mutual
promises regarding changing the production/consumption patterns, eliminating poverty, protecting
natural sources and management issues were included; while trying to reach these aims, the growing
gap between the rich and the poor, depletion of biological diversity, negative effects of globalism and
decrease in confidence in democratic systems were listed as difficulties faced (TUBITAK, 2006). In the
last decade, although the center of attention is the potential environmental effects of the climatic
changes, negative effects on the environment stem from anthropogenic effects (Laurance, 2001). As can
be understood, the main element that affects the sustainable development is the unsystematic increase
in population. Behind both the environmental and ecological destruction such as incalculable defor-
estation, urbanization, agricultural development and such causes lies the increase in population.
In the 21st century, as a result of the famine crisis that occurred after the Second World War and the
extreme consumption of natural resources due to the pressure of civilization, development has acceler-
ated. Although continual change is one of the mutual aims since the world summit in Rio de Janeiro
in 1992, this aim has not been improved as a new concept (Murai, 1995).
D. L. Meadows argues that it is too late to achieve sustainable development; what is left for us to do
is to overcome the existent development. According to Meadows’ scenario, the current structure will
either exceed the aimed level or will be bound to collapse in accordance with the current trend in pop-
ulation increase, industrial production, metal consumption and wheat production (Meadows, 1995).
The development criteria predicted by Meadows are illustrated in Table 1. Though it may not be a
perfect scientific approach, the evaluation criteria in Table 1 can be used for sustainable development
criteria.
More recently a new issue, sustainability, has emerged within development economic literature, which
has serious implications for this continual pursuit of economic growth. Sustainability is concerned with
ensuring the current generation meets their present needs without threatening future generations’
ability to do likewise (WCED, 1987). Whilst vague and thus not operational, this definition of sustain-
ability highlights the need for sustainability indicators to be focused on the future rather than just mea-
suring present economic activities. However, a standard measure of sustainability does not yet exist
within the literature (Islam and Clarke, 2005).
Activities Sustainable Critical Destructive
Population increase (annual) <0.5% 1.0–1.5% >% 2Economic development (GNI) 3% < GNI < 5% 8% < GNI < 10% GNI > 10% (developed country)
GNI < 0% (underdeveloped country)Deforestation rate (annual) >0.1% 0.5–20% >1%Forest area >30% 15–20% <10%Agricultural development (per person/Ha) >0.30% 0.15–0.20 0.10Self-sufficiency >91% 60–70% <50%Urbanization
Population density (per Ha) <50 100–150 >200Urban population(million) <0.5 >1 >10
Table 1. Predicted criteria for sustainable developments
256 N. Kizilaslan et al.
The purpose of the study is to determine the dimensions of sustainable development for Turkey by
taking account of the criteria regarded as necessary for sustainable development.
The Application of the Method
In the study, formation of the statistical model has used Minitab 12 for Windows. In the study, predic-
tions related to Turkey’s results of sustainable development criteria recommended by Meadows are
formed again by prediction with time series data.
Trend analysis fits a general trend model to time series data and provides forecasts. Linear, quadratic
and exponential growth trend equations for time series have been written as
Y(t) = β1 + β2t + et
Y(t) = β1 + β2t + β3t2 + et
Y(t) = β1(β2t) + et
In the study, the most suitable equation in the examined statistical forms is used. We estimated cri-
teria for sustainable development trends for the entire interval for which we had data (1980–2003), a
measure of its statistical significance (p < 0.10; p < 0.05; p < 0.01) and the number of circles on which
trends were estimated.
Results and Discussion
Predicted Criteria of Sustainable Development and the Case of Turkey
Population Increase RateIf the population of the country continues to grow at a rate of 2%, the calculations indicate that every
35 years the population will double. According to 2050 projections, it is estimated that the population
of the underdeveloped countries will be close to 9 billion people, whereas the developed countries will
have approximately 1.2 million share in this figure (UN, 2002).
Among the negative effects of excessive population growth, the fact that a population growth of 1%
engenders an increase of 1.28% in the oscillation of greenhouse gas is one of the significant indicators
(Shi, 2001).
With its high population increase pace, Turkey is a growing country. The Republic of Turkey carried
out pro-natalist politics (social laws put forward in accordance with family planning) until the mid-1960s
and then adopted anti-natalist politics in 1965. This political transition was brought into action clearly
with the 1965 Family Planning Law in 1965 and with the limited importation of family planning tools.
It is expected that Turkey’s population will be 66 million at the beginning of the 21st century and 87
million by the year 2025. Turkey’s population growth rate is estimated to drop 1.45% at the beginning
of the 21st century and 1.00% during the 2010–2025 period.
From the 3.4 birth rate in 1998 and 4.3 in 1978, total birth rate fell to 2.7 per woman. The estimated
2.8 children in the 1990 total birth rate is estimated to decline until the total birth rate of 1.58 seen in
the European Union is reached (SIS, various years). At the beginning of the 21st century, Turkey is still
under the influence of significant demographic changes. At the end of the 20th century, the demo-
graphic outlook of the country was on its way to being a developed country rather than a developing one
(www.spgk.saglik.gov.tr/ss/sayilar/9809).
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 254–266 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/sd
An Analytical Approach to Sustainable Development in Turkey 257
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 254–266 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/sd
The demographic data and estimations for the world and Turkey are illustrated in Table 2.
The trend equation, which has been calculated by taking the rate of population increase (SIS, various
years) in the period between 1980 and 2003 in Turkey into consideration and its related Figure 1 is
illustrated.
When Turkey is evaluated, according to the calculated exponential trend equation, it is seen that the
annual average population increase rate is −2.2% during the researched period in Turkey. It can be said
that as years pass the annual population increase rate in Turkey is inclined to decrease. The average of
population increase rate in Turkey is 2% on average. According to the widely accepted criteria, Turkey
is in the destructive development range due to its population increase rate.
In 2004, the population increased in most EU25 member states. The largest increases were recorded
in Cyprus1 (+25.4‰), Ireland (+20.0‰) and Spain2 (+16.2‰). The population fell in Lithuania
(−6.0‰), Latvia (−5.5‰), Estonia (−3.0‰), Hungary (−1.9‰), Germany and Poland (both −0.4‰)
(Eurostat, 2005).
Gross National IncomeGross national income is the monetary expression of a country’s final assets and services annually. When
this value is divided by the population, it reflects the average income of the country’s citizens. A country’s
gross national income per person is directed by social, economic and environmental influences. For
example, in countries where there is high gross national income, life expectancy and literacy are high
and infant mortality is low (World Bank Group, 2001).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2025 2050 <15 65+World 6555 21 9 1.2 7940 9243 41 29 7 48More developed 1216 11 10 0.1 1255 1261 4 17 15 77Less developed 5339 23 8 1.5 6685 7982 50 32 5 41Turkey 73.7 19 6 1.3 86 90.5 23 29 6 59United Kingdom 60.5 12 10 0.2 65.8 69.2 14 18 16 89Greece 11.1 10 10 0.0 11.4 10.6 −4 15 18 60Egypt 75.4 27 6 2.1 101.1 125.9 67 35 5 43Hungary 10.1 10 13 −0.3 9.6 8.9 −11 16 16 65Pakistan 165.8 33 9 2.4 228.8 295.0 78 41 4 34
Table 2. The demographic data and estimations of the world and of Turkey.1. Population mid-2006 (million)2. Birth rate3. Death rate4. Rate of natural increase (birth rate minus death rate, expressed as a percentage)5. Population 2025–2050 (projected) (million)6. Population change (2006–2050) (projected %)7. Population under age 15 (%); population over age 65 (%)8. Urban population (%).Source: http://www.prb.org/datafind/datafinder7.htm (PRB, 2006, World Population Data Sheet).
1 Government controlled area only.2 The net-migration figures for Spain and Italy are inflated by regularization programs: the figures on inward migration that the two countrieshave reported for 2004 include migrants that have arrived in earlier years.
258 N. Kizilaslan et al.
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 254–266 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/sd
As far as global values are concerned, Turkey seems to have an above average gross national income
per person; however, some facts on the developmental criteria lead to negative sustainable development
at some point. For example, the probability of living until the age of 40 is 80%; the illiterate adult pop-
ulation is 45% according to the 2001 population census. The rate of infants aged below 5 weighing less
than sufficient is high, and 10.3% of the population, who live on less than 2 dollars a day, live below the
poverty limit. Most people in Turkey (66.2%) live in cities. This indicates that food consumption is much
greater than food production (SIS, various years).
GNI (gross national income), GNI PPP per capita, 2005 (US$) in the world and in Turkey are illus-
trated in Table 3.
During the time of the research, average personal (GNI) income was calculated as $2208. According
to the table, Turkey lies in the average income level. The trend equation calculated in accordance with
the GNI values belonging to the 1980–2003 period (SIS, various years) and its related Figure 2 is
illustrated.
According to the calculated trend equation, the rate of annual increase in Turkey’s GNI (gross national
income) during the period of research is 6.47%. Although at times deviations upwards or downwards
are observed in the trend curve, the general inclination is an increase.
Actual
Fits
ActualFits
0 5 10 15 20 25
15
20
25
)%(eta
Res
aercnInoitalu
poP
Years
Yt = 26,0397*(0,978351**t)
MAPE:MAD:MSD:
2,091890,444780,34238
Figure 1. Trend equation related to the rate of annual population increase in Turkey and its distribution (1980–2003)
GNI
World 9 190More developed 27 790Less developed 4 950Turkey 8 420United Kingdom 32 690Greece 23 620Egypt 4 440Hungary 16 940Pakistan 2 350
Table 3. GNI (gross national income), GNI PPP per capita, 2005 (US$) in the world.Source: http://www.prb.org/datafind/datafinder7.htm (PRB, 2006, World Population Data Sheet).
An Analytical Approach to Sustainable Development in Turkey 259
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 254–266 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/sd
When this result is taken into consideration, according to the accepted criteria in Turkey, there is
an inclination from sustainable development to the critical area. This case can be seen clearly from
Figure 3.
Gross domestic product (GDP) can be used as an indicator of sustainability if the GDP estimates are
undertaken within a cost–benefit analysis framework based on social choice perspectives. Sustainabil-
ity is dependent on a healthy and functioning socio-economic and environmental (SEE) system. Eco-
nomic development can damage the SEE system through resource degradation, over-harvesting and
pollution (Islam and Clarke, 2005).
Forest AreaLand use changes reduce the quantity of natural habitats such as forests and its structural diversity,
resulting in multiple ecological impacts. The ecological effects of large scale forest loss include decreased
biodiversity, degradation of soil conditions and changes in balance of greenhouse gases in the biosphere,
which may in turn induce climate change (Prasad and Badarinath, 2005).
Actual
Fits
ActualFits
0 5 10 15 20 25
50000
150000
250000
)secirP
dexi
F(IN
G
Years
Yt = 55203,7*(1,06479**t)
MAPE:MAD:MSD:
15 20547
7,41E+08
Figure 2. Trend equation and its distribution in accordance with GNI and fixed prices in Turkey
Pace of Growth of GNI(%) in Accordance with Fixed Prices in Turkey
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Years (1980-2003)
Figure 3. Pace of growth of GNI (%) in accordance with fixed prices in Turkey
260 N. Kizilaslan et al.
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 254–266 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/sd
In Turkey, 2356799 people live in 7303 villages in the forests, 5086973 people live in 13011 villages
near forests and 7543772 people live in a total of 20314 forest villages. This concept mainly determines
the relationship between humankind and forest. This means that one out of every nine people in
Turkey’s population either lives in the forest or by the forest (Ministry of Environment and Forestry,
various years). Therefore, deforestation would influence the humankind–forest relationship in a nega-
tive way.
Forest area, change in 1990–2000 (1000 hectares) in the world and in Turkey are illustrated in
Table 4.
Forest area in Turkey is calculated as 26.05%. The annual rate of change of the forest area is 0.2%.
According to the predicted criteria, with respect to forest area, Turkey is above the sustainable con-
tinual limit and it is inclined towards the critical range. When annual deforestation is taken into con-
sideration, the case is still the same.
In Thailand, Forestry cover alone declined from 70% in 1936 to 53.3% in 1961 to 26% in 1993 (Ryan
and Wayuparb, 2004).
The countries with a value higher than one percent annual deforestation rate are the Philippines in
1970 and Thailand in 1980. On the other hand, in the 19th century for instance Malaysia with its less
than 0.1% destroyed forests was fit for the sustainable development criteria. Almost every country has
to aim at keeping its forest area above 30% to stabilize its climate, underground water, soil transition
and agricultural production (Brown and Kane, 1994).
Japan maintained some 25.1 million hectares of forest in 2002 (about 70% of the nation’s entire
surface area) (Statistics Bureau and Statistical Research and Training Institute, 2006).
Planted forests have become increasingly important with respect to diminishing the intervention in
natural forests for wood supply. This issue is particularly important in tropical developing countries, but
not exclusively; for example, vast programs for afforestation are under way in China, among many other
countries. There are also an encouraging number of examples of afforestation projects in countries
where little forest has ever existed naturally, or where forests have been nearly completely destroyed over
the centuries, such as Israel, Turkey and Uzbekistan. There is also an increasing interest worldwide in
the establishment of protected forest areas, in particular regional representative systems. For example,
in one of its biggest land conservation efforts ever, the United States of America plans to protect an
additional 16 million hectares of federally owned forest lands from road building and commercial devel-
opment. Many European countries, where forest estates in general are small, have emphasized small-
scale nature-emulating practices to protect forest resources (UN, 2000a).
Forest area
World −93 974More developed – Less developed – Turkey 220United Kingdom 170Greece – Egypt 20Hungary 72Pakistan −394
Table 4. Forest area, change in 1990–2000 (1000 hectares) in the worldSource: http://www.prb.org/datafind/datafinder7.htm (PRB, 2006, World Population Data Sheet).
An Analytical Approach to Sustainable Development in Turkey 261
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 254–266 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/sd
Agricultural DevelopmentWhen cultivable land per person in Turkey was calculated, cultivated land in the cultivable land was
taken into consideration. Thus during the time of the research for every year the cultivated land was
divided by the population and the cultivable land per person was found.
In Figure 4 the distribution of cultivable land area per person in Turkey during the time of the research
is illustrated.
At the time of the research, the cultivable land area per person in Turkey is 0.39ha. This shows that,
according to the accepted criteria, Turkey is in the continual development value range from the agri-
cultural development standpoint.
Abundant natural resources have fuelled Thailand’s impressive economic growth, rendering it the
only net food exporter in Asia, but agricultural land per person decreased from 2.5rai (=0.404 hectare)
in 1983 to 2.2rai (=0.356 hectare) in 1993 (Ryan and Wayuparb, 2004).
In Zambia, the average cultivated area per person was almost the same in these different systems,
varying from 0.41 to 0.45ha. On soils of lower fertility, a larger area of 0.68–0.73ha had to be cultivated
to obtain sufficient food. In West Africa, the average food-crop area per person in the rain forests of the
Congo, Ghana and Liberia appeared to be about 0.18ha, whereas in overpopulated areas of northern
Ghana where ox-plows were used the area varied from 0.27 to 0.72ha (http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-31008-
201-1-DO_TOPIC.html).
Over 80% of potentially cultivable land reserves are located in just two regions, South America and
sub-Saharan Africa. In contrast, most of the cultivable land in Asia is already in use, and the population
increase expected by 2050 will reduce per capita availability of cultivable land to below the critical level
of 0.1ha per person (http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1150).
In the underdeveloped country model, the agricultural sector’s problems cannot be separated from
the county’s main problems, since agricultural sector characterizes this type of economy. In the under-
developed countries, agriculture is a significant income source for a vast group of people.
High dependency rate by increasing the instability in the income levels combined with a growing
rural population forms an important circle in the cycle of poverty. The other circle in the cycle ‘capital
and savings’ brings the country to the ‘insufficient capital–low production–low income–low savings–low
Cultivable Land Area(Ha) Per Person in Turkey
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Years(1980-2003)
Figure 4. Cultivable land area (Ha) per person in Turkey
262 N. Kizilaslan et al.
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 254–266 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/sd
investment’ cycle observed in Nurkse’s ‘closed circle’ hypothesis. One of the important elements in the
cycle, that is inequality in sharing the income, is attempted to be explained by the Kuznets curve by
some researchers. According to the Kuznets theory, although the inequality increases as the income
level increases just like a ‘U’ curve at the beginning, it later starts declining rapidly. This indicates that
moving from rural areas to urban areas will increase the production in the rant able sector and thus
spoil the income distribution (Kuznets, 1955). The government tends to adjust its social majority depen-
dent politics in line with the interests of this class, whose contribution to national income and agricul-
ture in Turkey is low. When production increase, unemployment, inflation and foreign trade values form
a square, economy will be closer to perfection.
Self-Sufficiency RateSelf-sufficiency is discussed in terms of grain production and consumption balance. Self-sufficiency has
been calculated in terms of a grain consumption–production equilibrium. The projections indicate that
until the year 2030 an imbalance in the grain consumption–production equilibrium will occur. The
amount of the deficit is estimated to reach 204 million tons in just the four developed countries United
States, China, India and Russia (Brown and Kane, 1994). Therefore, a 90% rate of self-sufficiency was
predicted as a continual value. Values less than 50% indicated an insufficiency from the global
perspective.
In determining the self-sufficiency rate, grain, which has the highest production area in the total cul-
tivable land area in Turkey and which plays a major role in the people’s basic food requirement, is taken
into consideration. During the period of the research, for the calculation of this product’s annual self-
sufficiency rate, the product’s total supply and demand for each year was taken into consideration.
The change observed in Turkey’s self-sufficiency rate each year in grain production is illustrated in
Figure 5.
For the time of the research, the self-sufficiency rate of Turkey was calculated as 119.4% on average.
According to the accepted criteria, Turkey lies in the sustainable development range. However, the point
that needs careful consideration here is that Turkey’s self-sufficiency rate is gradually heading towards
negative values. The calculated trend equation seems to prove this. Although Turkey can be seen as a
self-sufficient country for now, it is thought-provoking that Turkey’s self-sufficiency rate has an annual
average of −1.1% change.
The Progress of Turkey's Self-Sufficiency Rate (%)
0
91
182
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Years (1980-2003)
Figure 5. The progress of Turkey’s self-sufficiency rate with regards to accepted criteria
An Analytical Approach to Sustainable Development in Turkey 263
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 254–266 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/sd
Japan’s self-sufficiency rate for food (in terms of calories) dropped from 73% in fiscal 1965 to 40%
in fiscal 2004. Japan’s present food self-sufficiency rate is the lowest among major industrialized coun-
tries, and so Japan is the world’s largest food importing nation (Statistics Bureau and Statistical Research
and Training Institute, 2006).
UrbanizationPopulation density. When population density was calculated, the area Turkey has and the population of
each year was taken into consideration and the number of people per square kilometer was found.
The trend equation regarding population density in Turkey and its distribution is illustrated in Figure
6. As can be seen from the calculated trend equation, during the period of the research, population
density had reached an annual average of 2.08% increase rate. From Figure 7 the progress of Turkey’s
population density can be seen year by year. As can be observed from the graph, the progress is
positive.
The term average of Turkey’s population density turned out to be 74.71. According to the predicted
criteria, Turkey inclines to fall towards the sustainable critical range with regards to its population
density.
Actual
Fits
ActualFits
0 5 10 15 20 25
60
70
80
90
)2mk
rep(ytisne
Dnoitalu
poP
Years
Yt = 56,9411*(1,02081**t)
MAPE:MAD:MSD:
1,117770,878251,51681
Change of Turkey's Population Density(per km2)
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Years(1980-2003)
Figure 6. The trend equation pertaining to Turkey’s population density and its distribution
Figure 7. Change of Turkey’s population density year by year
264 N. Kizilaslan et al.
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 254–266 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/sd
The average density of the world’s population is 48 people per square kilometer. The countries that
have highest population density are Monaco (23660/km2), Macau (PRC) (17699/km2), Hong Kong
(6407/km2) and Singapore (6333/km2). The countries that have lowest population density are Western
Sahara (1.3/km2), Falkland Islands (UK) (0.25/km2) and Greenland (Denmark) (0.026/km2). According
to 2004 statistics, with a density of 93/km2, Turkey is in 102nd place among 230 countries of the world.
This density is expected to reach 129/km2 in the year of 2050 (UN, 2004).
Population density in India increased from 117 to 274 persons per square kilometer between 1951 and
1991 (Mishra, 2002).
Urban population. Urbanization implies the transfer of population from permanent residence in rural
to urban places. It may be measured by the percentage of an area’s population living in urban places.
Urban places can be distinguished from rural places in terms of population density or population size
or functional specialization on non-agricultural activities, or a combination of one or more of these char-
acteristics (Woods, 2003).
Environmental sustainability is related to the primary and irreplaceable role held by the natural envi-
ronment in the functioning of urban systems, as well as in that of any other socioeconomic system
(Bithas and Christofakis, 2006).
Urban population growth is a result of both natural population growth in the cities and rural–urban
migration. The growing urban populations and their demand for food and other agricultural products
will also have major impacts on land use in peri-urban areas and nearby rural areas. The present adden-
dum examines the impacts of urbanization on sustainable agriculture, including the issues of urban
agriculture, the impact of cities on peri-urban areas and rural–urban linkages. A majority of the popu-
lation in North America and Europe have lived in cities since the early 20th century, a majority in Latin
America since the 1960s and a majority of people in West Asia since 1980. People in Asia and Africa
remain predominantly rural, but this situation is changing rapidly. Asian cities are growing at an average
rate of 3% per year, compared with overall population growth of 1.4%, while the population of African
cities is growing at a rate of 4% per year, compared with overall growth of 2.6%. In both regions the
majority of the population will live in urban areas by 2020. By 2025, approximately 60% of the world’s
population will live in urban areas (UN, 2000b).
While calculating urban population, the urban populations during the population census in Turkey
and the number of cities at those times were taken into consideration.
The trend equation of the progress of Turkey’s urban population and its distribution is given in
Figure 8.
Actual
Fits
ActualFits
9876543210
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
)elpoep(
noitalupo
PUrb
an
Years
Yt = 87150,1*(1,23113**t)
MSD:MAD:MAPE:
1,61E+08 8585
3
Figure 8. The trend equation pertaining to Turkey’s urban population and its distribution
An Analytical Approach to Sustainable Development in Turkey 265
As can be seen from Figure 8, Turkey’s urban population has increased 23.11% on average during the
times of population census. It can be said that moving from rural areas to cities has played an impor-
tant role in the increase of Turkey’s urban population, but the point calling for attention is that the
change has a positive value as high as 23.11%.
In Turkey, the average value is 0.283 million, and it is seen that according to the accepted criteria, in
terms of sustainable development, the critical values have not been outrun yet.
For example, using data from the National Population Census 2000, urbanization in Indonesia is
still characterized by the high concentration of urban population in a few large cities, notably Jakarta
Metropolitan Area (Jabotabek), which indicates an interurban disparity between Jabotabek and other
cities, and between large and smaller cities (Firman, 2004).
Conclusion
According to the calculated trend equation, at the time of the research the annual average increase of
the gross national income in Turkey is 6.47%. Although deviations upwards and downwards in the trend
curve are observed, the general inclination was toward increase.
When this result is taken into consideration, according to the accepted criteria it is seen that Turkey
has inclined from the sustainable development area towards the critical area.
According to the exponential trend equation, it is seen that during the time of the research the rate
of change of Turkey’s annual population increase is −2.2% on average. It can be said that as years go
by Turkey’s annual population increase is on the decline. Turkey’s population increase rate period
average is 2%. According to the accepted criteria, Turkey lies in the destructive developmental range
from the viewpoint of its population increase rate.
At the time of the research, Turkey’s self-sufficiency rate was calculated to be 119.4%. According to
the accepted criteria, Turkey falls in the sustainable development range.
Rapid industrialism and high energy consumption cause pollution. Moving to big cities accelerates
this process. Urban environmental conditions are accepted as unchangeable for a density of 50 people
per hectare. When the density is above 200 people per hectare, it has an extreme crowded value. A city’s
population should be less than half a million for a livable environment. The average value in Turkey is
0.283 million people per hectare, which indicates that the value is not yet in the critical value range from
the developmental viewpoint.
The period average of the population density in Turkey is found to be 74.41. This value indicates that
Turkey inclines from the sustainable developmental area towards the critical area with respect to the
predicted criteria.
According to the predicted criteria, in terms of its forest area, Turkey has passed the sustainable devel-
opment limit and is inclining towards the critical range. When the annual deforestation area is taken
into consideration, the same situation is faced.
During the period of the research, cultivable land area per person is 0.39 and according to the accepted
criteria Turkey is in the sustainable development value range.
When Turkey is evaluated with the above values, according to agricultural development and urban
population criteria, self-sufficiency is between sustainable development values. While the annual popu-
lation growth rate increased considerably on one hand, on the other hand the declining rate in the
research period can be thought of as a sign for a critical or sustainable development value. Gross national
income seems to be in the critical development range according to population density and forest areas.
This result shows that Turkey should produce efficient policies for its hazardous and critical values.
Application of such policies requires educated people.
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 254–266 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/sd
266 N. Kizilaslan et al.
References
Bithas KP, Christofakis M. 2006. Environmentally sustainable cities. Critical review and operational conditions. Sustainable
Development 14(3): 177–189.
Brown LR, Kane H. 1994. Full House: Reassessing the Earth’s Population Carrying Capacity. Norton: New York.
Eurostat. 2005. European Demography, EU25 Population Up by 0.5% in 2004, Nearly One Third of Births in the EU25 Outside Mar-riage, Eurostat News Release 136/2005-25. http//www.eurostat.cec.eu.int/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/ [September 2006].
Firman T. 2004. Demographic and spatial patterns of Indonesia’s recent urbanization. Population, Space and Place 10(6):
421–434.
Hopwood B, Mellor M, O’Brien G. 2005. Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development
13(1): 38–52.
Saglik Bakanlıgı TC. 2006. http:// www.spgk.saglik.gov.tr/ss/sayilar/9809 [September 2006].
The International Development Research Centre-Science for Humanity. 2006. Chapter 3: Farming Systems, IDRC Books Free
Online. http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-31008-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html [September 2006].
People and Climate Change, Climate may widen gulf between rich and poor. http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1150
[September 2006].
Islam SMN, Clarke MF. 2005. The welfare economics of measuring sustainability: a new approach based on social choice
theory and systems analysis. Sustainable Development 13(5): 282–296.
Kuznets S. 1955. Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic Review XLV: 1.
Laurance WF. 2001. Future shock: forecasting a grim fate for the earth. Trend in Ecology and Evolution 16: 531–532.
Meadows DL. 1995. It is too late to achieve sustainable development, now let us strive for survivable development. In TowardGlobal Planning of Sustainable Use of the Earth: Development of Global Eco-Engineering, Murai S (ed.). Elsevier: Amsterdam;
359–374.
Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Turkey. Various years.
Mishra V. 2002. Population growth and intensification of land use in India. International Journal of Population Geography 8(5):
365–383.
Murai S. 1995. Global environment and population carrying capacity. Population, Land Mnagement, and Environmental Change,
UNU Global Environmental Forum IV.
Population Reference Bureau (PRB). 2006. Search Population and Health Data. New Feature: New Country Data-Monthly
Reports on Latest Demographic Surveys. World Population Data Sheet. http://www.prb.org/datafind/datafinder7.htm
[September 2006].
Prasad VK, Badarinath KVS. 2005. Assessing forest cover sustainability and deforestation risk from socioeconomic and bio-
physical ındicators – a case study from Rampa Forests, South India. Sustainable Development 13(2): 102–114.
Ryan P, Wayuparb N. 2004. Green space sustainability in Thailand. Sustainable Development 12(4): 223–237.
Shi A. 2001. Population Growth and Global Carbon Dioxide Emission. International Union for the Scientific Study of Population
(IUSSP) Conference, Brazil.
SIS (Prime Ministry Turkish Statistical Institute) Entry. Various years.
Statistics Bureau and Statistical Research and Training Institute. 2006. Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. In Statistical Hand-book of Japan, Chapter 5. http://www.stat.go.jp/English/data/handbook/c05cont.htm [September 2006]
TUBITAK. 2006. Vizyon 2023: Bilim ve Teknoloji Stratejileri Teknoloji Ongoru Projesi. Cevre ve Surdurulebilir Kalkinma
Tematik Paneli Vizyon ve Ongoru Raporu-2003, Ankara, Turkey. http://www.vizyon2023.tubitak.gov.tr/teknolojion-
gorusu/paneller/raporozet/ [September 2006].
UN. 2000a. Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development: Trends in National Implementation, Economic and Social Council
E/CN/.17/2000/5/Add. 1. Commission on Sustainable Development Eighth Session.
UN. 2000b. Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development, Economic and Social Council E/CN/.17/2000/7/Add. 1. Commis-
sion on Sustainable Development Eighth Session.
UN. 2002. World Population Prospects: the 2002 Revision Highlights. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2002/
WPP2002-HIGHLIGHTSrev1.PDF
UN. 2006. World Population Prospects (2004 Revision) Population Database. http://esa.un.org/unpp/
Woods R. 2003. Urbanisation in Europe and China during the second millennium: a review of urbanism and demography.
International Journal of Population Geography 9(3): 215–227.
World Bank Group. 2001. http://www.imf.org/external/am/2001-O-imfcstat/joint.htm [September 2006].
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common Future. WCED–Oxford University Press:
Oxford.
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 254–266 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/sd