Management and quality of life analysis of provinces with the highest and lowest population density

Türkiye’s Settlement Pattern and Population Dynamics (Supplementary Article 3)

Aydın Tiryaki (2026)

Türkiye’s settlement map contains a massive imbalance in terms of the spatial distribution of the population. Population density, expressed as the number of people per square kilometer, fundamentally affects both the quality of life and the administrative management style of a province. This extreme difference between Istanbul, the province with the highest population density in Türkiye (approximately 3,000 people per square kilometer), and provinces like Tunceli or Ardahan with the lowest density (approximately 10-20 people per square kilometer), clearly reveals the structural problems in settlement architecture (1).

In centers like Istanbul where density is extreme, the biggest problem is “spatial contraction” and the resulting decline in quality of life. High density causes transportation networks to lock up, a decrease in the amount of green space per person, and the chronicization of environmental problems such as air pollution. From an administrative perspective, this density creates immense pressure on the speed of public services. In such settlements where every square meter is very precious, even finding a location for a new school or hospital can turn into an administrative crisis (2).

On the other hand, in provinces with very low population density such as Tunceli or Ardahan, the problem shows the exact opposite trend. Although there is an abundance of space in these regions, the very scattered and small population increases the unit cost of service. In these settlements where only a handful of people fall per several square kilometers, carrying infrastructure services (electricity, water, internet) to the most remote points creates an economic inefficiency (3). Maintaining the vitality of social life and employing qualified personnel in the region also constitutes an administrative challenge in low-density settlements.

This difference in density also affects local democracy and citizen participation. While it becomes difficult for a citizen in Istanbul to make their voice heard and participate in management among massive crowds, the distance between the management and the citizen is physically less in low-population provinces. However, in both cases, it is seen that a single formula does not work for settlement architecture. A requirement arises for horizontal and planned expansion rather than vertical expansion in high-density settlements, and the clustering of services at certain focal points in low-density settlements (4).

In conclusion, Türkiye’s settlement policies should develop strategies that vary according to the number of people per square kilometer. Establishing this balance between metropolises where density has become a burden on life and rural areas where sparsity creates a service burden is a necessity for a rational management approach (5).

Aydın Tiryaki Ankara, January 12, 2026

---

All ideas, opinions, and suggestions in this article belong to the author. During the process of writing the text, the artificial intelligence Gemini was utilized for writing assistance and information compilation.

REFERENCES

(1) TurkStat, Population Density and Türkiye in Statistics Report. https://www.tuik.gov.tr

(2) Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, Urbanization Council Decisions and Density Analyses. https://www.csb.gov.tr

(3) Tiryaki, A. (2026). Border Issue: Provincial Border or Service Border? (Article 14).

(4) General Directorate of Development Agencies, Regional Quality of Life and Socio-Economic Development Index. https://www.ka.gov.tr

(5) United Nations Sustainable Cities and Communities (Goal 11) Implementation Guide. https://www.un.org