Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 31 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 337 - 351 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.14744/planlama.2021.09226 İndeks Tarihi: 13-02-2022

Rüzgârdan Enerji Üretiminin Sosyo-Mekânsal Duyarlılık Alanları: İzmir Örneği

Öz:
Artan nüfus, gelişen sanayi ve fosil yakıt temelli donanıma sahip günümüz yaşam koşulları nedeniyle enerji ihtiyacı giderek artmaktadır. Bu çerçevede enerji ihtiyacına uzun vadeli çözüm arayışında yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarına geçiş ön plana çıkmakta; ancak zaman zaman bu süreçlerde toplum tepkisiyle karşılaşılmaktadır. Bu çalışma, önemli bir yenilenebilir kaynak olan rüzgâra odaklanarak; Türkiye’deki tesislerin beşte birinin ve yoğun toplum tepkisinin yer aldığı İzmir bağlamında rüzgârdan enerji üretme sürecini toplumsal bir bakış açısıyla değerlendirmektedir. Rüzgârdan enerji üretiminin toplumsal algıda yer eden doğal çevre ve ekonomik yaşam (tarım, hayvancılık), duyusal (görüntü bütünlüğüne etki, gürültü), sağlık (insan sağlığına etki), teknolojik (manyetik alan ve türbin sayısı) alanlardaki duyarlılıkları tespit edilerek, bireysel ve kolektif algıyı temsil eden görüşler ortaya koyulmaktadır. Bulgular toplumsal duyarlılığın geçerliliğini göstermektedir; bununla birlikte ifade edilen konuları sorun olarak görmeyen bir görüşün de olduğu görülmektedir. Bu durum, etkinin olmadığı düşüncesi ile ya da başkalarından duyduğuna dayanarak duyarlılık değerlendirmesi yapıldığı olasılığını da gündeme getirmektedir. Çalışmanın bulguları İzmir bağlamında, sayıca giderek artan rüzgâr tesislerinin toplumda rüzgâr enerjisi konusunda bir “doygunluk” oluşturduğunu; tesislerin yer seçiminde doğa ve insan faaliyetlerinin gerçekleştiği alanlara olan “mesafe” koşulunun belirlenmesi ve buna paralel olarak tesislerin belli bir alanda yoğunlaşması ile gelişen kümülatif etkinin de dikkate alınması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca bu süreçlerde halkın yer alması gerekliliği ve bilgilenme ihtiyacı açıkça görülmektedir
Anahtar Kelime:

Socio-spatial Sensitivity Areas in Wind Energy Transition: The Case of İzmir

Öz:
Growing energy need is obvious considering the increasing population, industrial development, together with today's fossil fuel based living conditions. Within this framework renewable energy transition is inevitable in search for a long-term solution to this growing energy need. However, several public oppositions are encountered during such transition processes. This study focuses on the wind energy - an important source of renewable energy - in case of İzmir which is the leading city in Turkey in terms of number of wind farms as well as intensive public oppositions. Study reveals social sensitivity areas of wind energy production regarding natural environment and economic life (agriculture, animal husbandry), sensory (effect on visual integrity, noise), health (effect on human health), technological (magnetic field and turbine number) issues. The study reveals individual and collective perceptions about the sensitivity areas, on the other hand, there is an opinion that does not consider the expressed issues as a problem. The findings show the validity of social sensitivity, but also raise the possibility of making sensitivity assessment based on the thought that there is no such thing or what he heard from others. According to the findings of the study, increasing number of wind farms within the context of İzmir creates a “saturation” among the society about wind energy. In this respect, “minimum distance” criteria should be determined for the wind farm site selection to the areas where nature and human activities take place. “Cumulative effect” caused by the concentration of wind farms in a certain area should also be taken into consideration. Finally, public participation during these processes and being informed is urgent.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Aitchison, C. (2004). The Potential Impact of Fullabrook Wind Farm Proposal, North Devon: Evidence Gathering of the Impact of Wind Farms on Visitor Numbers and Tourist Experience. University of the West of England/Devon Wind Power, Bristol.
  • Aitchison, C. (2012). Tourism Impact of Wind Farms. University of Edinburgh, U.K.
  • Aitken, M., (2010). Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature. Energy Policy, 38(4): 1834-1841.
  • Altaş, İ. H., (1998). Yenilenebilir Enerji Kaynakları ve Türkiye’deki Potansiyeli. Enerji, Elektrik, Elektromekanik-3e, 45, 58-63.
  • AMR Interactive. (2010). Community attitudes to wind farms in NSW. https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/communities/100947- wind-farms-community-attitudes.pdf (Erişim Tarihi 07. 03. 2021)
  • Ataöv, A., Eraydin, A. (2011). Different forms of governance: Responses of two metropolitan regions in Turkey to state restructuring. Urban Affairs Review, 47(1), 84–128.
  • Aydın, İ. (2013). Balıkesir’de Rüzgâr Enerjisi. Eastern Geographical Review, 18(29), 29-50.
  • Aydın, N.Y., Kentel, E., Düzgün, H.S. (2013). GIS-based site selection methodology for hybrid renewable energy systems: A case study from western Turkey. Energy Conversion and Management, 70, 90-106.
  • Baban, S.M.J., Parry, T. (2001). Developing and applying a Gıs-assisted approach to locating wind farms in the UK. Renewable Energy, 24, 59-71.
  • Bakker, R.H., Pedersen, E., van den Berg, G.P., Steward, R.E., Lok, W., Bouma, J. (2012). Impact of wind turbine sound on annoyance, self-reported sleep disturbance and psyhological distress. Science of the Total Environment, 425, 42-51.
  • Bishop, I.D. (2002). Determination of thresholds of visual impact: the case of wind turbines. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29,707-718.
  • Bishop, I.D., Miller, D.R. (2007). Visual assessment of off-shore wind turbines: The influence of distance, contrast, movement and social variables. Renewable Energy. 32, 814-831.
  • Bishop, K., Proctor, A., (1994). Love Them or Loathe Them? Public Attitudes Towards Wind Farms in Wales. University of Cardiff, Cardiff.
  • Breglio, V. (1997). Sustainable Energy Budget Coalition Survey (1995 yılı baskısı). Washington.
  • Burleson E. (2009). Wind power, national security and sound energy policy. Heinonline.
  • Burningham, K. (2000). Using the language of NIMBY: A topic for research, not an activity for researchers. Local Environment, 5(1), 55-67.
  • Cavallaro F, Ciraolo L. A. (2005). Multicriteria approach to evaluate wind energy plants on an Italian island. Energy Policy, 33, 235-244.
  • Clarke A. (1991). Wind energy progress and potential. Energy Policy, 19, 742–55.
  • Dai, K., Bergot, A., Liang, C., Xiang, W-N., Huang, Z. (2015). Environmental issues associated with wind energy – A review. Renewable Energy, 75, 911-921.
  • Daugarrd, N. (1997). Acceptability study of wind power in Denmark. Copenhagen. Energy Centre Denmark.
  • Devine-Wright, P. (2005). Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy, 8(2), 125-139.
  • Devine-Wright, P. (2007). Reconsidering public attitudes and public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: a critical review. School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, UK.
  • Drewitt, A.L., Langston, R.H.W. (2006). Assesing the impacts of wind farms on birds, International Journal of Avian Science, 148(1), 29-42.
  • DuPont, R. L. (1981). The Nuclear Power Phobia. Business Week, 7 Kasım,14-16. DWTMA (Danish Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association). (1993). Holdningsundersogelse, Ringkjobing. Denmark.
  • Eraydin, A. (2009). Rethinking globalization and social change: Globalisation, labour markets and social interaction patterns. N. Z. Gulersoy, F. Gezici, A. B. Önem, K. Y. Arslanlı (Ed.), New approaches in urban and regional planning içinde (s. 69–88). Istanbul: Istanbul Teknik Üniveristesi.
  • Eraydin, A., Tasan Kok, T., Vranken, J. (2010). Immigrant entrepreneurship and contribution of different forms of social integration in economic performance of cities. European Planning Studies, 18 (4), 521–43.
  • European Environmental Agency (EEA). (2009). Europe’s onshore and offshore wind energy potential – An assessment of environmental and economic constraints. EEA Technical Report, No 6/2009.
  • Evans, B., Parks, J., & Theobald, K. (2011). Urban wind power and the private sector: Community benefits and public engagement. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(2), 227-244.
  • Güzel, A. (2012). Rüzgar enerji santralleri ve halkın kabulü: Çanakkale-Erenköy örneği. Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, Çanakkale.
  • Gype, P., (1995). Wind energy comes from age, New York.
  • Haggett, C., Toke, D. (2006). Crossing the Great Divide - Using Multi-method Analysis to Understand Opposition to Windfarms, Public Administration 84 (1), 103–120.
  • Harper M., Anderson, B., James, P.A.B., Bahaj, A. S. (2019). Onshore wind and the likelihood of planning acceptance: Learning from a Great Britain context. Energy Policy, 128, 954-966.
  • Haugen, K.M.B. (2011). International Review of Policies and Recommendations for Wind Turbine Setbacks from Residences: Setbacks, Noise, Shadow Flicker, and Other Concerns. Minnesota Department of Commerce: Energy Facility Permitting.
  • IFC (International Finance Corpration), WBG (World Bank Group). (2007). Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Wind Energy.
  • International energy Agency (IEA). (2015). World Energy Outlook Special Report on Energy and Climate Change.
  • IPPC (International Panel on Climate Change). (2012). Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation – Special Report of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.
  • IPPC (International Panel on Climate Change). (2020). Climate Change and Land - An IPCC Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/ sites/4/2020/02/SPM_Updated-Jan20.pdf
  • IPSOS. (2010). Ipsos Global Energy Barometer:Attitudes Towards Energy Sources. http://www.ipsos.com/public-affairs/sites/www.ipsos.com. public-affairs/files/documents/Ipsos EnergyBarometer.pdf (ErişimTarihi 07. 03. 2021)
  • IPSOS. (2012). After Fukushima: Global Opinion on Energy Policy. Ipsos Public Affairs. http://www.ipsos.com/public-affairs/sites/www. ipsos.com.public-affairs/files/Energy%20Article. pdf (Erişim Tarihi 07.03.2021)
  • Kaya, T. ve Kahraman, C. (2010). Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of İstanbul. Energy, 35, 2517-2527.
  • Kılıç, Ç., Yılmaz, M., Sarı, R., (2017). Rüzgâr enerji sistemlerinin sosyal kabul dinamiklerini anlama”. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 15 (2), 135- 156.
  • Klepinger, M. (2007). Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems. ExtensionBulletinWO-1053. (https://www.canr.msu.edu/uploads/ resources/pdfs/michigan_land_use_guidelines_for_siting_wind_ energy_systems.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 19.01.2021)
  • Koç, T. (1996). Kapıdağı Yarımadasında Rüzgâr ve Ortam. Türk Coğrafya Dergisi, 31, 167-182.
  • Kraft, M. E.; Clary, B. B. (1991). Citizen participation and the NIMBY syndrome: Public response to radioactive waste disposal. The Western Political Quarterly, 44, 299-328.
  • Krohn, S. ve Damborg, S. (1999). On the public attitutdes towards the wind power, Renewable Energy, 16, 954-960.
  • Lima, F., Ferreira, P., Vieira, F. (2013). Strategic impact management of wind power projects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 277- 290.
  • Mikołajczak, J., Borowski, S., Marć-Pieńkowska, J., Odrowąż-Sypniewska, G., Bernacki, Z., Siódmiak, J., Szterk, P. (2013). Preliminary studies on the reaction of growing geese (Anser anser f. domestica) to the proximity of wind turbines. Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences,16(4), 679-686.
  • Mulvaney, K.K., Woodson, P., Prokopy, L.S. (2013). A tale of three counties: Understanding wind development in the rural Midwestern United States. Energy Policy, 56, 322 - 330.
  • Munday, M., Bristow, G., Cowell, R. (2011). Wind farms in rural areas: How far do community benefits from wind farms represent a local economic development opportunity?. Journal of Rural Studies, 27(1), 01 - 12.
  • Nguyen, K. Q. (2007). Impacts of wind power generation and CO2emission constraints on thefuture choice of fuels and technologies in the power sector of Vietnam. Energy Policy, 35, 2305–2312.
  • NIA (Northern Ireland Assembly). (2013). Wind Turbines: Planning and Seperation Distances. NIAR 767-13.
  • NWCC (National Wind Coordinating Committee). (1999). Studying Wind Energy /Bird Interactions: A Guidance Document – Methrics and Methods for Determining or Monitoring Potential Impacts on Birda at Existing and Proposed Wind Energy Sites, Washington DC.
  • Omnibus Report. (1995). Public Attitutes Toward Wind Energy. Canadian Wind Energy Association and Environmental monitor, Toronto.
  • Özçam, Z. (2016). Rethinking Wind Energy in Its Social Context: Conflicting Perspectives and Planning Problems – The Karaburun Experience, Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Özgener, Ö. (2002). Türkiye’de ve Dünya’da Rüzgâr Enerjisi Kullanımı. DEÜ Mühendislik Fakültesi Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi, 4(3), 159- 173.
  • Palabıyık, H., Yavaş, H., Aydın, M. (2010). Türkiye’de Nükleer Santral Kurulabilir mi? Çatışmadan Uzlaşıya: Türkiye’de Nükleer Enerji Projelerinde Sosyal Kabul Sorunu ve Halkın Reddetme Sendromunun Araştırılması. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 5(2), 175 -201.
  • Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Douse, A., Langston, R.H.W. (2012). Greater impacts of wind farms on bird populations during construction than subsequent operation: results of a multi-site and multi-specie analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49, 386-394.
  • Peker, Z. (2005). Integrating Renewable Energy Technologies into Cities Through Urban Planning: In The Case Of Geothermal and Wind Energy, Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, İzmir Yüksek Teknoloji Üniversitesi. Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir.
  • Peker, Z. (2013). Yenilenebilir Enerji Gelişimlerinin Sosyal Boyutu. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(4), 663-691.
  • Pierpont, N. (2009). Wind turbine syndrome: a report on a natural experiment, K-Selected Books, Santa Fe, NM, US.
  • Premalatha, M., Abbasi, T., Abbasi, S. A. (2014). Wind energy: Increasing deployment, rising environmental concerns. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31, 270-288.
  • Ramirez-Rosado I.J., Garcia-Garrido E., Fernandez-Jimeneza A., Zorzano- Santamaria P.J., Monteiro C., Miranda V. (2008). Promotion of new wind farms based on a decision support system. Renewable Energy, 33, 558–66.
  • Schaub, M. (2012). Spatial distribution of wind turbines is crucial for the survival of red kite populations. Biological Conservation, 155, 111-118.
  • Short, L. (2002). Wind Power and English landscape identity, İçinde Wind Power in View: Energy Landscapes in a Crowded World, Academic Press, San Diego, 43-58.
  • Simon, A. M. (1996). A Summary of Research Conducted into Attitudes to Wind Power from 1990-1996. Planning and Research for British Wind Energy Association, London.
  • Sonnberger M.,Ruddat,M. (2017). Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany. Technology in Society, 51, 56-65.
  • Starling, J. (2006). Public Perception of Wind Farms: Opinion of Local Residents at a Developed and Proposed Wind Farm, Yayınlanmamış Tez, University of the West of England, Bristol.
  • Swofford, J.; Slattery, M. (2010). Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: Local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making. Energy Policy, 38, 2508-2519.
  • T.C. Enerji ve Tabi Kaynaklar Bakanlığı (2014). Türkiye Ulusal Yenilenebilir Enerji Eylem Planı. https://kusip.gov.tr/kusip/yonetici/tematikAlanEk- Goster.htm?id=75 (Erişim Tarihi: 07.03.2021)
  • Telleria, J.L. (2009). Potential impacts of wind farms on migratory birds crossing Spain. Bird Conservation International, 19(2), 131-136.
  • Tester J.W., Drake E.M., Driscoll M.J., Golay M.W., Peters W.A. (2005). Sustainable energy; choosing among options. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Tetra Tech EC Inc, Nixon Peabody LLP, Comsearch, Avian Systems Inc. (2008). Wind Energy Siting Handbook. http://awea.files.cms-plus. com/AWEA_Siting_Handbook_Feb2008.pdf.
  • Toja-Silva, F., Colmenar-Santos, A., Castro-Gil, M. (2013). Urban wind energy exploitation systems: Behaviour under multidirectional flow conditions – Opportunities and challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 24, 364-378.
  • Torres-Sibille, A.D., Cloquell-Ballester, V.A., Cloquell-Ballester, V.A., Darton, R. (2009). Development and validation of a multicriteria indicator for the assessment of objective aesthetic impact of wind farms. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13,40-55.
  • Tsoutsos, T., Tsouchlaraki, A., Tsiropoulos, M. Kaldellis, J. (2009) [b]. Visual impact evaluation methods of wind parks: Application for a Greek Island. Wind Engineering, 33, 83-92.
  • Tsoutsos, T., Tsouchlaraki, A., Tsiropoulos, M. Serpetsidakis M. (2009) [a]. Visual impact evaluation of a wind park in a Greek island. Applied Energy, 86, 546-553.
  • Türkiye elektrik İletim (TEIAŞ). (2018). Türkiye elektirk üretim-iletim 2018 yılı İstatistikleri, Türkiye Elektrik Enerjisi Üretiminin Kaynaklara Göre Dağılımı, (https://www.teias.gov.tr/tr-TR/turkiye-elektrik-uretim-iletim- istatistikleri 06.08.2020)
  • Türkiye Rüzgar Enerjisi Birliği (TÜREB). (2019). Türkiye Rüzgar Enerjisi İstatistik Raporu Temmuz 2019, Ankara.
  • U.S. EPA (2013). Renewable Energy Fact Sheet: Wind Turbines. (http:// water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/Wind-Power.pdf. 12.08.2016)
  • Van der Horst, D. (2007). NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2705-2714.
  • Voivontas D. Assimacopoulos D, Mourelatos A, Corominas J. (1998). Evaluation of renewable energy potential using a GIS decision support system. Renewable Energy, 13(3), 333–344.
  • Wang J, Jing Y, Zhang C, Zhao J. (2009). Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 2263- 2278.
  • Warren, C. R.; McFadyen, M. (2010). Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 204-213.
  • Warren, C.R. & Birnie, R. V. (2009). Re-powering Scotland: Wind Farms and the ‘Energy or Environment?’ Debate. Scottish Geographical Journal, 125(2), 97-126.
  • Wolsink M., (2007). Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy policy, 35(5), 2692-2704.
  • Wolsink M., Sprengers, (1993). Wind Turbine Noise: A New Environmental Threat?. University of Amstherdam.
  • Wolsink, M. (1988). The Social Impact of a Large Wind Turbine, Environ Impact Assess Rev. no. 8, 323-334.
  • Wolsink, M. (2000). Wind Power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy, 21, 49-64.
  • Wolsink, M. (2012a) “Wind power: Basic challenge concerning social acceptance”, Renewable Energy Systems, 1785-1821.
  • Wüstenhagen, R.; Wolsink, M.; Bürer, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 358(5), 2683-2691.
  • Yetiş, Ü., Kentel, E., Severcan, Y.C., & Türel, A., (2015). Rüzgar Enerjisi Santralleri Raporu. Muğla Belediyesi.
  • Young, B. (1993). Attitudes Towards Wind Power: A Survey of Opinion in Cornwall and Devon. Department of Trade and Industry, London.
  • Yuan, X.; Zuo, J.; Huisingh, D. (2015). Social acceptance of wind power: A case study of Shandong Province, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 92, 168-178.
  • Yue C.D., Wang S.S. (2006). GIS-based evaluation of multifarious local renewable energy sources: a case study of the Chigu area of southwestern Taiwan. Energy Policy, 34, 730-42.
  • Zahedi, A. (2012). Current Status and Future Prospects of the Wind Energy. IPEC, Conference on Power & Energy. Ho Chi Minh City.
APA Demir B, Ataöv A (2021). Rüzgârdan Enerji Üretiminin Sosyo-Mekânsal Duyarlılık Alanları: İzmir Örneği. , 337 - 351. 10.14744/planlama.2021.09226
Chicago Demir Basak,Ataöv Anlı Rüzgârdan Enerji Üretiminin Sosyo-Mekânsal Duyarlılık Alanları: İzmir Örneği. (2021): 337 - 351. 10.14744/planlama.2021.09226
MLA Demir Basak,Ataöv Anlı Rüzgârdan Enerji Üretiminin Sosyo-Mekânsal Duyarlılık Alanları: İzmir Örneği. , 2021, ss.337 - 351. 10.14744/planlama.2021.09226
AMA Demir B,Ataöv A Rüzgârdan Enerji Üretiminin Sosyo-Mekânsal Duyarlılık Alanları: İzmir Örneği. . 2021; 337 - 351. 10.14744/planlama.2021.09226
Vancouver Demir B,Ataöv A Rüzgârdan Enerji Üretiminin Sosyo-Mekânsal Duyarlılık Alanları: İzmir Örneği. . 2021; 337 - 351. 10.14744/planlama.2021.09226
IEEE Demir B,Ataöv A "Rüzgârdan Enerji Üretiminin Sosyo-Mekânsal Duyarlılık Alanları: İzmir Örneği." , ss.337 - 351, 2021. 10.14744/planlama.2021.09226
ISNAD Demir, Basak - Ataöv, Anlı. "Rüzgârdan Enerji Üretiminin Sosyo-Mekânsal Duyarlılık Alanları: İzmir Örneği". (2021), 337-351. https://doi.org/10.14744/planlama.2021.09226
APA Demir B, Ataöv A (2021). Rüzgârdan Enerji Üretiminin Sosyo-Mekânsal Duyarlılık Alanları: İzmir Örneği. PLANLAMA, 31(2), 337 - 351. 10.14744/planlama.2021.09226
Chicago Demir Basak,Ataöv Anlı Rüzgârdan Enerji Üretiminin Sosyo-Mekânsal Duyarlılık Alanları: İzmir Örneği. PLANLAMA 31, no.2 (2021): 337 - 351. 10.14744/planlama.2021.09226
MLA Demir Basak,Ataöv Anlı Rüzgârdan Enerji Üretiminin Sosyo-Mekânsal Duyarlılık Alanları: İzmir Örneği. PLANLAMA, vol.31, no.2, 2021, ss.337 - 351. 10.14744/planlama.2021.09226
AMA Demir B,Ataöv A Rüzgârdan Enerji Üretiminin Sosyo-Mekânsal Duyarlılık Alanları: İzmir Örneği. PLANLAMA. 2021; 31(2): 337 - 351. 10.14744/planlama.2021.09226
Vancouver Demir B,Ataöv A Rüzgârdan Enerji Üretiminin Sosyo-Mekânsal Duyarlılık Alanları: İzmir Örneği. PLANLAMA. 2021; 31(2): 337 - 351. 10.14744/planlama.2021.09226
IEEE Demir B,Ataöv A "Rüzgârdan Enerji Üretiminin Sosyo-Mekânsal Duyarlılık Alanları: İzmir Örneği." PLANLAMA, 31, ss.337 - 351, 2021. 10.14744/planlama.2021.09226
ISNAD Demir, Basak - Ataöv, Anlı. "Rüzgârdan Enerji Üretiminin Sosyo-Mekânsal Duyarlılık Alanları: İzmir Örneği". PLANLAMA 31/2 (2021), 337-351. https://doi.org/10.14744/planlama.2021.09226