Rapidly increasing urbanisation on a global scale leads to the fragmentation of natural ecosystems and the decrease in urban green areas, causing serious problems in terms of both environmental and social sustainability. Urban gaps, which are not planned especially on a small scale, turn into areas with high ecological potential, which become dysfunctional over time. In this context, nature-based solutions and approaches compatible with local ecological values gain importance in terms of sustainable urban design. In this context, chaos gardening is considered as a landscape approach that allows nature to establish its own order, is based on low intervention, spontaneous plant growth and supports wildlife. This study proposes a chaos gardening approach for the ecological reclamation of idle urban spaces at the micro-spatial scale. The research is based on theoretical foundations based on natural landscape design, native flora, chaotic aesthetics and green infrastructure literatures and emphasises the contribution of spontaneous vegetation to landscape ecology. In the study, three different micro-spaces selected in Erzurum city centre were evaluated through visual analyses and field  scale observations; design proposals were developed in line with spatial strategies based on chaos theory, multi-layered planting and sensory diversity principles. The study argues that urban voids are spatially, ecologically and emotionally regenerative spaces; it reveals that small-scale idle areas can be transformed by reintegrating with nature and sustainable landscape interventions supported by local flora, enabling the creation of sustainable and resilient urban landscapes with micro-scale, nature-oriented design strategies.

Keywords - Chaos Gardening, Micro-Space Design, Nature-Based Solutions, Local Flora and Landscape Ecology, Underutilized Urban Void

Küresel ölçekte hızla artan kentleşme, doğal ekosistemlerin parçalanmasına ve kent içi yeşil alanların azalmasına yol açarak hem çevresel hem de sosyal sürdürülebilirlik açısından ciddi sorunlara neden olmaktadır. Özellikle küçük ölçekte planlanmamış kentsel boşluklar, zamanla işlevsizleşen ancak ekolojik potansiyeli yüksek alanlara dönüşmektedir. Bu bağlamda, doğa tabanlı çözümler ve yerel ekolojik değerlerle uyumlu yaklaşımlar, sürdürülebilir kent tasarımı açısından önem kazanmaktadır. Bu bağlamda kaos bahçeciliği; doğanın kendi düzenini kurmasına izin veren, düşük müdahaleli, spontane bitki gelişimini esas alan ve yaban hayatı destekleyen bir peyzaj yaklaşımı olarak ele alınmaktadır. Bu çalışma, mikro-mekân ölçeğinde ele alınan âtıl kentsel boşlukların ekolojik geri kazanımı amacıyla, kaos bahçeciliği yaklaşımını önermektedir. Araştırma; doğal peyzaj tasarımı, yerel flora, kaotik estetik ve yeşil altyapı literatürlerine dayalı kuramsal temeller üzerine oturtulmuş ve özellikle kendiliğinden gelişen bitki örtüsünün peyzaj ekolojisine katkısını vurgulamıştır. Çalışmada Erzurum kent merkezinde seçilen üç farklı ölçekte mikro-mekân, görsel analizler ve arazi gözlemleriyle değerlendirilmiş; kaos teorisine dayalı mekânsal stratejiler, çok katmanlı bitkilendirme ve duyusal çeşitlilik ilkeleri doğrultusunda tasarım önerileri geliştirilmiştir. Çalışma kentsel boşlukların mekânsal, ekolojik ve duygusal açıdan yeniden kazanım alanları olduğunu savunmakta; mikro ölçekli, doğa odaklı tasarım stratejileriyle sürdürülebilir ve dirençli kent peyzajlarının oluşturulmasını sağlayarak küçük ölçekli atıl alanların doğa ile yeniden bütünleştirilmesi ve yerel flora ile desteklenmiş sürdürülebilir peyzaj müdahaleleriyle dönüştürülebilirliğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords^Turkish - Kaos Bahçeciliği, Mikro-Mekân Tasarımı, Doğa Tabanlı Çözümler, Yerel Flora ve Peyzaj Ekolojisi, Atıl Kentsel Boşluklar

[1] Lydon, M., & Garcia, A. (2015). Tactical Urbanism. Island Press.

[2] Franck, K. A., & Stevens, Q. (2007). Loose space: Possibility and diversity in urban life. Routledge.

[3] Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. Verso Books.

[4] Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on cities. Blackwell.

[5] Németh, J., & Langhorst, J. (2014). Rethinking urban transformation: Temporary uses for vacant land. Cities, 40, 143–150.

[6] Beatley, T. (2016). Handbook of Biophilic City Planning & Design. Island Press.

[7] Ahern, J. (2013). Planning for resilient urban green infrastructure. In Resilience in ecology and urban design (pp. 221–244). Springer.

[8] Dunnett, N., & Hitchmough, J. (2004). The dynamic landscape: design, ecology and management of naturalistic urban planting. Taylor & Francis.

[9] Oudolf, P., & Kingsbury, N. (2011). Landscapes in landscapes. The Monacelli Press, LLC.

[10] Hitchmough, J. (2017). Sowing Beauty: Designing Flowering Meadows from Seed. Timber Press.

[11] Monbiot, G. (2013). Feral: Rewilding the land, the sea, and human life. Penguin.

[12] Kingsbury, N., & Oudolf, P. (2004). Planting: A New Perspective. Timber Press.

[13] Gandy, M. (2016). Moth and rust: Nature, memory, and the urban wasteland. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(1), 21–38.

[14] Simard, S. (2021). Finding the mother tree: Uncovering the wisdom and intelligence of the forest. Penguin UK.

[15] Jorgensen, A., & Keenan, R. (2012). Urban wildscapes. Routledge.

[16] Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. CUP Archive.

[17] Kuo, F. E. (2010). Parks and other green environments: Essential components of a healthy human habitat. National Recreation and Park Association.

[18] Corner, J. (1999). Eidetic operations and new landscapes. In J. Corner (Ed.), Recovering landscape: Essays in contemporary landscape architecture (pp. 153–169). Princeton Architectural Press.

[19] Laing, O. (2024). The Garden Against Time: The Number 1 Sunday Times Bestseller. Pan Macmillan.

[20] Thompson, I. H. (2000). Ecology, community and delight: Sources of values in landscape architecture. Spon Press.

[21] Ahern, J. (2007). Green infrastructure for cities: The spatial dimension. In V. Novotny & P. Brown (Eds.), Cities of the future: Towards integrated sustainable water and landscape management (pp. 267–283). IWA Publishing.

[22] Del Tredici, P. (2010). Spontaneous urban vegetation: reflections of change in a globalized world. Nature and Culture, 5(3), 299–315.

[23] Francis, M., Lorimer, J., & Raco, M. (2012). Urban nature and the ecological imaginary. Urban Studies, 49(8), 1777–1796.

[24] Lorimer, J., Sandom, C., Jepson, P., Doughty, C., Barua, M., & Kirby, K. (2015). Rewilding: Science, practice, and politics. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 40, 39–62.

[25] Jørgensen, A. (2020). Urban Wildscapes: The aesthetics and experience of wildness in urban space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 198, 103800.

[26] Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemelä, J., & James, P. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3), 167–178.

[27] Rupprecht, C. D. D., & Byrne, J. A. (2014). Informal urban green-space: A typology and trilingual systematic review of its role for urban residents and trends in the literature. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(4), 597–611.

[28] Tidball, K. G., & Krasny, M. E. (2010). Urban environmental education from a social-ecological perspective: Conceptual framework for civic ecology education. Cities and the Environment, 3(1), 1–20.

[29] Aronson, M. F. J., Lepczyk, C. A., & Evans, K. L. (2017). Biodiversity in the city: key challenges for urban green space management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(4), 189–196.

[30] Raymond, C. M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M. R., & Calfapietra, C. (2017). A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environmental Science & Policy, 77, 15–24.