Public Opinion Survey on Hobby Gardens in Ankara

Executive Summary

This survey was conducted in order to reveal public perceptions of hobby gardens, which have been intensely debated in Ankara in recent years, assessments of the current demolition and penalty practices, expectations of a solution and the political effects of the issue. Within the scope of the survey, the views of 541 participants living in different districts of Ankara were analysed, and the data obtained were evaluated using numerical and percentage-based methods. The findings show that the issue of hobby gardens is not merely a matter of zoning and land use, but has become a multidimensional policy area with an influence on social life, rural development, public perception and voter behaviour.

According to the results of the survey, hobby gardens generally meet with a positive response among the Ankara public. While 53.8% of participants stated that they view hobby gardens positively or very positively, the social and psychological benefits they offer, particularly for families with children, come to the fore. 75.6% of participants stated that hobby gardens make important contributions for families with children in terms of contact with nature, quality of life and social interaction. In addition, a significant proportion of participants believe that hobby gardens create economic vitality in rural areas, support the local economy and create a new area of interaction between city and countryside. These findings reveal that citizens regard hobby gardens not merely as a matter of investment or property, but also as an element of lifestyle and social well-being.

One of the most striking results of the survey is the perception of grievance concerning the current demolition and penalty practices. 70.4% of participants believe that the demolitions and fines imposed have wronged citizens. The proportion of those who do not consider the heavy fines fair reaches 63.4%, while the proportion of those who consider the demolition decisions entirely right remains very limited. The findings show that, while a significant part of the public accepts the necessity of legal regulation, it has serious reservations about the method, scope and consequences of the current practices. In particular, practices carried out in areas that have been used for many years or that families have created with substantial savings are giving rise to public debate on fairness and proportionality.

The survey also reveals that the public does not have sufficient knowledge of the current legislation. While 51% of participants stated that they have only limited knowledge of the subject, the proportion of those stating that they have detailed knowledge remained at around 10%. This shows that public perception has been shaped largely by the outcomes of the practices, and that there is a need for stronger information on the purpose, scope and rationale of the legislation. The current lack of communication can be regarded as one of the factors contributing to the growing public reaction to the practices and to the strengthening of the perception of grievance.

An examination of expectations regarding a solution shows that the great majority of participants prefer policies based on regulation, standardisation and gradual transformation rather than an entirely prohibitive, demolition-focused approach. The combined proportion of those choosing the options “it should continue with standards introduced”, “a gradual transformation should be applied” and “existing areas should be protected through legal regulation” reaches approximately 80%. By contrast, the proportion of those who want the current demolition and penalty policies to be maintained as they are stands at only around 15%. This result shows that the public’s main expectation is not a punitive approach but a transition model that ensures legal certainty, protects environmental and planning criteria and at the same time reduces existing grievances.

When the political dimension of the survey is assessed, the findings are striking. 46.6% of participants stated that the demolition and penalty processes have had a negative effect on their view of the government. This figure shows that the issue has ceased to be merely a technical or administrative matter and has become a strategic public policy issue capable of affecting voter behaviour. Particularly given that in metropolitan cities such as Ankara hundreds of thousands of citizens are directly or indirectly connected with hobby gardens, the political and social repercussions of the decisions to be taken need to be considered carefully.

Another important finding of the survey is that citizens largely direct their expectations of a solution towards central government. Approximately 50% of participants stated that the most effective authority for resolving the problem is the Presidency. This figure is ahead of all other institutions; joint action by institutions (21.8%), legal regulation by the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (GNAT) (11.8%) and initiatives by the relevant ministries remain at lower levels. This result reveals that the public sees the issue of hobby gardens not as a limited administrative problem that can be solved at local level, but as a public policy issue requiring central coordination and strong political will. Citizens expect a new regulation to be made through coordination among the relevant ministries, local governments and the GNAT under the leadership of the Presidency, existing grievances to be redressed and similar problems to be prevented in future.

In conclusion, the survey reveals that there is strong public support for hobby gardens among the Ankara public, that the current demolition and penalty practices have created a widespread perception of grievance, that the great majority of citizens prefer a solution model based on regulation and transformation, and that the issue carries political significance at a level that could affect voter behaviour. The findings show that the issue of hobby gardens is a strategic policy area that must be assessed not only within the scope of environmental, agricultural and zoning policies but also in terms of public satisfaction, rural development, management of public opinion and political stability. In this framework, a comprehensive regulatory approach that ensures legal certainty, takes environmental sensitivities into account, reduces existing grievances and considers public expectations emerges as the public’s strongest demand.