Sustaining Mediterranean highlands through Traditional Ecological Knowledge and transhumance practices

Abstract

Introduction:

Traditional Ecological Knowledge encompasses knowledge systems shaped by long-term human–nature interactions, focusing on sustainable resource use and environmental adaptation. Yörük communities in Türkiye, who have practiced transhumant pastoralism for centuries, represent a living form of Traditional Ecological Knowledge that integrates cultural continuity, ecological balance, and adaptive livelihood strategies.

Methods:

This study employed a mixed-methods approach combining systematic literature analysis, long-term ethnographic field observations, and semi-quantitative risk assessment. A database of 275 studies was analyzed alongside nearly three decades of participatory fieldwork conducted in the Central Taurus Mountains. Data were coded and thematically categorized to identify the ecological, cultural, and socio-economic dimensions of the Traditional Ecological Knowledge of the Yörüks.

Results:

Findings show that the traditional highland–lowland cycle ensures the seasonal and balanced use of water, soil, and pasture resources, maintaining vital ecosystem services. However, climate change, demographic shifts, and modernization have disrupted intergenerational knowledge transfer. Risk assessment results indicate that water scarcity and pasture degradation pose the greatest threats to the sustainability of transhumant pastoralism.

Discussion and conclusion:

The Traditional Ecological Knowledge of the Yörüks functions both as a cultural heritage and as an adaptive ecological framework that contributes to sustainable rural development and enhances the capacity for climate change adaptation. Integrating this knowledge into agricultural, environmental, and rural policies can strengthen biodiversity conservation and align practices with the Sustainable Development Goals. Safeguarding this system requires participatory policy design, local empowerment, and the revitalization of intergenerational knowledge transmission.

1 Introduction

Ongoing environmental crises have emphasized the need to integrate Indigenous and local knowledge systems alongside scientific approaches in sustainability policies. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is developing a holistic governance framework in which different types of knowledge are equally valued and recommends the inclusion of traditional knowledge systems in decision-making processes (IPBES, 2019). This approach corresponds to the “Multiple Evidence Base” conceptualized by Tengö et al. (2014). The approach is based on the complementary evaluation of scientific knowledge and Indigenous and local knowledge systems. Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) refers to the body of knowledge, beliefs, and practices that are transmitted across generations, rooted in long-term human–nature relationships, and shaped through culturally embedded and practice-based processes (Berkes, 1993, 2008).

In line with this conceptual framework, studies on TEK have been steadily increasing both globally and in Türkiye. TEK encompasses a multilayered structure that includes ecological observation, ethnoveterinary practices, plant knowledge, animal behavior, and climate cycles (Berkes, 2008). Over the past four decades, TEK-focused research has particularly flourished in regions such as Latin America, Canada, Australia, and Africa, where studies have documented the sustainable human–nature relationships of traditional communities and contributed significantly to global policy-making processes (Mistry and Berardi, 2016). In Türkiye, however, TEK is a relatively new concept in scholarly discourse, with emerging studies in the fields of folklore, environmental anthropology, rural development, and nature conservation (Büyükşahin and Güneş, 2016; Karakaya, 2016; Özdemir, 2018; Yolcu, 2018, 2024; Yolcu and Aça, 2019). In Türkiye, scholarly engagement with TEK has expanded in recent years, yet the field is still in its formative stages.

Yörük communities, with a presence in Anatolia spanning over a thousand years, are among the most prominent bearers of TEK in Türkiye.

The term “Yörük” refers to seasonally mobile communities descended from the Oghuz-Turkmen tribes (Eröz, 1991; Matsubara, 2022). The name derives from the verb “yürümek” (to walk), reflecting their transhumant pastoralism (Halaçoğlu, 2009). Since the 11th century, Yörüks have inhabited Anatolia, maintaining a way of life closely aligned with natural cycles. Through their summer and winter pasture (yayla-kışlak) transhumance system, they sustained their livelihoods while also preserving ecological balance (Doğan and Doğan, 2004; Işık, 2006; Ertürk and Şanlı, 2018; Göçer, 2023; Kıvrak, 2014, 2017). Yörüks, characterized as transhumant pastoral communities who spend summers in highland pastures and winters in milder lowland areas (Ak, 2022), primarily engage in livestock breeding, live in goat-hair tents, and practice limited agriculture in their wintering grounds (Ekentok, 2022). This agro-pastoral model represents a flexible and resilient livelihood system.

Cultural elements such as the camel, once central to Yörük identity and transportation, have declined with the rise of motorized vehicles and state-enforced sedentarization policies (Okca and Genç, 2017). Nevertheless, Yörük life represents not merely an economic production model but a nature-sensitive lifestyle marked by minimal environmental intervention, rotational grazing, and protection of water sources and biodiversity. Yörük tribes determined the timing of their seasonal migrations based on the fodder needs of animals, the condition of vegetation, and natural signs (Johansen, 2005). In this system, which embodies the direct application of TEK, practices such as feeding medicinal herbs to sick animals and interpreting natural changes through animal behavior exemplify the deeply embedded, experiential knowledge maintained through daily life (Yolcu and Aça, 2019). Yörüks’ knowledge of medicinal plants (Acır, 2020), migratory routes, pasture management, and livestock grazing calendars are still considered components of indigenous knowledge systems (Tolunay et al., 2018).

The transhumant pastoral lifestyle of the Yörüks has undergone various transformations throughout history. Policies such as the settlement campaigns of the Ottoman Empire, the centralization efforts following the Tanzimat period, and the land distribution strategies implemented during the early Republic period accelerated the transition of Yörüks from nomadism to sedentarism (Tuztaş Horzumlu, 2014; Beşirli and Erdal, 2008). The Settlement Law enacted in 1934 was perceived by Yörüks as a mandate for sedentarization (Matsubara, 2022).

During this process, agriculture gradually expanded in both scope and significance. While some communities retained elements of transhumant livestock production, others increasingly shifted toward settled farming, particularly in fertile lowland regions. From the 1950s onward, with the rise of rural development projects and the expansion of irrigated agriculture, pastoralism in regions like Antalya gave way to farming, and transhumant pastoral lifeways was reduced to a symbolic level (Kaştan and Kaştan, 2009; Çelik, 2006). Harsh policies were implemented to enforce sedentarization, while broader socioeconomic changes accelerated this process. Mechanization of agriculture, the enactment of forestry laws, and the rapid conversion of large pasturelands to farmland led to the shrinkage of grazing areas and the imposition of strict rules on pasture use (Matsubara, 2022). This shift also contributed to the gradual erosion of local ecological knowledge and land-use practices that had historically complemented the Yörük transhumance system.

Despite these transformations, only a small number of Yörük communities continue to preserve key elements of their traditional knowledge systems, sustaining a way of life rooted in the cyclical and sustainable use of natural resources. However, at present, the number of communities still practicing this lifestyle is decreasing, and those who remain have become increasingly vulnerable. In particular, small Yörük communities continue to exist in the Taurus Mountains of the Mediterranean Region (Güç, 2010) and the mountainous areas of Western Anatolia. However, the transmission of this knowledge system is increasingly hindered by factors such as urbanization, restrictions on highland pastures, compulsory education, and tourism pressures (Durukan and Gülel, 2020).

This local fragility must also be viewed in a global context: according to the UNGA (2022), rangelands cover more than half of the Earth’s land surface and are increasingly threatened by desertification and land degradation. In this framework, TEK is recognized as a critical resource for sustaining rangeland ecosystems, conserving biodiversity, and supporting resilient agricultural systems (Harunoğulları and Polat, 2018). Nevertheless, the existing literature on TEK of the Yörüks remains largely descriptive and culture-oriented, with limited functional analysis of its contributions to ecosystem services, particularly in relation to water regulation, soil fertility, and biodiversity.

Recent international frameworks, including UNESCO (2019) recognition of transhumance as an Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity and the UN General Assembly’s designation of 2026 as the International Year of Pastoralism and Pastoralists, emphasize the global significance of pastoral systems.

The research aims to contribute both to the conservation of traditional knowledge systems and the strengthening of sustainable agriculture and nature conservation policies. Its primary goal is to examine the TEK system developed by transhumant pastoral communities over generations, and to analyze its potential in promoting ecological sustainability, agricultural resilience, and cultural heritage conservation. Using the Yörük community as a case study, the analysis explores how nature-integrated lifeways can be embedded into contemporary environmental policies. By examining the contributions of transhumant production systems to ecosystem services such as water, soil, and biodiversity, the findings demonstrate their relevance to the Sustainable Development Goals.

2 Method

2.1 Research approach and data collection

This study adopted a mixed-methods approach, combining systematic content analysis, ethnographic fieldwork, and semi-quantitative risk assessment.

Two primary data sources were employed:

• A document-based literature review focusing on studies related to Yörük communities and TEK in Türkiye, and

• Long-term ethnographic field observations conducted in the Central Taurus Mountains.

By integrating these two sources, the study aimed to move beyond a narrative review and develop an analytical dataset linking documented knowledge with lived experience.

2.2 Literature review

The literature review was conducted through national and international academic databases, including the Turkish Higher Education Council National Thesis Center (YÖKTEZ), TR Index, Web of Science (WoS), and other international academic databases. The reviewed publications included articles, theses, reports, and books addressing Yörük pastoral practices, migration systems, and traditional knowledge structures. Since TEK is a new research field in Türkiye, most of these studies were not prepared directly on TEK; however, they were included because they contain practices and observations within the scope of TEK.

A database comprising 275 studies analyzed at the title, abstract, and full-text levels was constructed (see Figure 1). This database was organized into a multi-dimensional matrix, coded according to each source’s title, publication year, content type, and access information. Beyond bibliographic details, the studies were categorized into thematic groups such as livelihood strategies, socio-ecological pressures, and ecosystem services. This classification enabled a systematic thematic analysis of the literature, revealing the multi-dimensional contributions and vulnerabilities TEK of Yörüks.

Figure 1

Additionally, the comprehensive bibliographic works of Ağaoğlu (2010) and Muşmal and Gözel (2023) were used as essential references for tracing Yörük culture and the history of transhumance tradition.

The collected literature data were subjected to content analysis, and each study was coded according to the type of knowledge, thematic focus, and illustrative case examples it contained. These coded data were then categorized thematically to form the theoretical foundation on TEK, which enabled cross-comparison with field findings.

This comprehensive literature base also guided the construction of the study’s historical dimension, leading to an additional analysis grounded in historical sources to contextualize the evolution of nomadism.

Most research on Yörük communities has been published in Turkish. While this provides valuable local insights, it has limited the integration of this knowledge into international scholarly debates.

2.3 Historical periodization sources

To evaluate the historical and temporal evolution of nomadism (Yörük identity) in Türkiye, the following sources were consulted:

• For the 11th–15th centuries (Seljuk–Early Ottoman period): Cahen (1968), Köprülü (1991), and Lindner (1983);

• For the 16th–19th century Ottoman Empire: İnalcık (2005, 2014), İnalcık and Quataert (1994), Ak (2022), and Orhonlu (1987);

• For the early Republican era (20th century): Quataert (2005);

• For the modernization and migration processes between 1950 and 2000: Bates (1973), Johansen (2005), and Matsubara (2022);

• To understand the era of globalization and ecological pressures since the 2000s: Kıvrak (2014, 2017), Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi (2018), and Uslu (2020).

This historical periodization has enabled the interpretation of field findings within structured historical contexts and has shed light on the transformation of traditional knowledge systems.

2.4 Field data and participatory observation

A significant contribution of this research is the fieldwork conducted by the second author, based on nearly 30 years of ethnographic observation and participatory monitoring with Yörük communities in the Central Taurus regions. The shaded purple areas mark the core transhumance zones where Yörük communities practice seasonal migration between highland and lowland settlements. (Figure 2). These observations have provided rich and up-to-date qualitative data on topics such as transhumance (yayla–kışlak usage), grazing dynamics, water resource utilization, and migratory routes.

Figure 2

The ecologically distinct Central Taurus Mountains, which form part of the southern mountain chains of the Anatolian Peninsula, were selected as the primary research area. The primary reason for focusing on the Central Taurus Mountains is their role as a transitional zone between the Mediterranean and Inner Anatolian climatic regimes (Atalay, 2002). Ecological and geographical conditions in this region reflect the interaction between the humid Mediterranean coastal climate and the steppe-like continental climate of Inner Anatolia. This transition is made possible by the Göksu, Seyhan, and Ceyhan rivers, which cut through the coastal mountain chains from west to east, creating deep gorges that facilitate seasonal climatic exchanges with the continental interior. These corridors correspond to three major passage zones: in the west, the Göksu basin linking the Mersin–Karaman corridor; in the center, the Adana–Niğde–Kayseri corridor; and in the east, the Adana–Kayseri–Maraş corridor. The Göksu, Seyhan, and Ceyhan River basins cut through the coastal ranges and open corridors toward the Anatolian plateau, producing distinctive climatic interactions along these valleys. This transitional setting provides the ecological framework in which Yörük pastoral systems have historically developed.

The ethnographic field notes were not only treated as descriptive observations but also systematically structured and analyzed in connection with the literature matrix. Through comparative analysis, they were transformed into a multidimensional dataset. As the study does not involve any human or animal experimentation, ethics committee approval was not required.

2.5 Data analysis

The collected data were evaluated using thematic analysis and classified under key themes such as TEK, ecosystem services, environmental variables, and socio-economic conditions. Both bibliographic content and ethnographic notes were coded and thematically clustered, enabling systematic comparison between field evidence and literature-based findings.

This process generated a structured dataset that enabled cross-comparison between documented research and observed practices Analytical frameworks were then developed by connecting recurring patterns observed in the field with established theoretical perspectives, including resilience, nature-based solutions, and TEK (Berkes, 2008; Folke et al., 2010; Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016). Within this framework, the impacts of climate change on the Yörük way of life were examined, and cross-thematic linkages were identified.

2.6 Risk assessment

A semi-quantitative risk analysis was conducted to evaluate factors threatening sustainability. For each risk factor, “impact severity” and “likelihood of occurrence” were scored on a scale of 1–10. A total risk score was calculated using the formula (Wall, 2011):

Based on the total scores:

• 1–39 = Low Risk

• 40–69 = Moderate Risk

• 70–100 = High Risk (Aven, 2016; Dumbravă and Iacob, 2013; EPA, 2024; New et al., 2022; Vasvári, 2015)

The semi-quantitative approach, widely applied in complex socio-ecological systems, combines numerical assessment with qualitative insights (Linkov et al., 2014). We adopted it to balance field-based qualitative observations with structured quantitative evaluation, providing a more comprehensive assessment of ecological, cultural, and socio-economic risks.

Likelihood values were supported by field observations and literature, while impact severity was evaluated in terms of potential damage to ecosystems, cultural heritage, and production systems. The risk scores were generated through a comparative synthesis of field observation data and literature findings, integrating both quantitative and qualitative perspectives.

3 Results

The Yörüks have long sustained a transhumant pastoral system in Anatolia, contributing significantly to ecological sustainability through livestock herding and limited agricultural production. Practices such as the transhumance system, goat-hair tents, and livestock management models have supported the conservation of natural resources. However, modernization, urbanization dynamics, and regulatory frameworks have increasingly constrained these practices. Since the 1950s, the transition of Yörük communities to a sedentary lifestyle has accelerated, while the opening of highland pastures to permanent settlement and the imposition of grazing bans have placed significant restrictions on transhumant pastoralism. Table 1 provides an integrated overview of this long-term trajectory, outlining the socio-economic transformation of Yörük communities, the evolution of their ecological practices, and the external factors that have shaped these changes across a thousand-year historical continuum.

Although the Yörüks’ economic structure was traditionally based on livestock breeding, it has gradually diversified into a broader range of livelihood strategies. Small ruminant husbandry remains central, accounting for approximately 60% of total income sources. Goat and sheep herding enable the production of dairy goods such as milk, yogurt, cheese, and butter. Agriculture (20%) has gained importance, especially among sedentary households, supporting livestock through grain, vegetable, and fruit cultivation. Handicrafts (10%), including goat-hair tents, saddlebags, and kilims, not only preserve cultural heritage but also provide economic benefits. Trade (5%), together with other activities (5%) such as seasonal labor, rural tourism, and beekeeping, serves as a complementary income (Figure 3). This economic system represents a flexible structure that reflects the Yörüks’ sustainable relationship with their natural environment. While contemporary Yörük households pursue diversified livelihood strategies, including agriculture, trade, and tourism, their traditional knowledge systems and cultural identity remain fundamentally grounded in transhumant pastoralism.

Figure 3

The traditional lifestyle of the Yörüks, grounded in their close and enduring relationship with nature, makes substantial contributions to all four core categories of ecosystem services.

In terms of provisioning services, Yörüks directly utilize natural resources to produce animal-based foods such as milk, yogurt, butter, cottage cheese, cheese, and dried meat, thereby enhancing food security. Handcrafted items made from goat hair, tents, saddlebags, rugs, and mats serve both shelter and everyday practical needs. The use of wild plants for firewood and medicinal purposes also reflects long-standing practices of folk medicine and veterinary care.

Regarding regulating services, the seasonal transhumance between highland and lowland pastures enables the balanced use of water resources. Grazing practices designed to avoid overgrazing help prevent soil erosion. Naturally fertilized livestock contributes to improved soil health, and the overall production process supports the reduction of carbon emissions. Folk meteorology allows for the early anticipation of seasonal weather changes, playing a critical role in migration decisions.

Within supporting services, animal manure enhances soil fertility and microbial activity when mixed into the land. Moreover, as transhumant herds graze across different ecological zones, plant seeds consumed during grazing pass through the animals’ digestive systems and are dispersed to new areas, aiding in plant propagation and the preservation of biodiversity. Migration routes that traverse multiple ecological zones also strengthen habitat connectivity. Observations of nature and interactions with the environment serve as effective ecological indicators for detecting early signs of environmental change.

In terms of cultural services, the Yörük way of life encompasses more than economic survival; it is a bearer of cultural meaning. The black tents, traditional garments, migration rituals, and music represent expressions of cultural identity. Nature-based knowledge passed orally from one generation to the next, along with traditional crafts, helps safeguard cultural heritage and also offers significant potential for nature-based rural tourism (Figure 4). This holistic system illustrates that the Yörüks represent not just a historical tradition but also a viable model for advancing present-day ecological sustainability goals.

Figure 4

Figure 5 illustrates how the core livelihood practices of the Yörüks, such as migration, transhumance, traditional production, and ecological methods, are being affected by increasing climate pressures. This analysis, supported by field observations and qualitative data, offers a concrete framework for understanding the growing vulnerabilities in Yörük culture. The assessment considers not only potential future risks but also problems already being observed in practice. In doing so, it provides a foundation for developing practical recommendations to strengthen current adaptive capacities.

Figure 5

Building upon this analysis, Figure 5 details the specific climate-related impacts on Yörük practices and identifies corresponding local adaptation strategies.

Climate change is imposing multiple pressures on Yörük practices.

• Water scarcity along migration routes has emerged as the most critical threat.

• Pasture degradation due to rising temperatures and erratic rainfall reduces livestock productivity and biodiversity.

• Altered migration routes make access to traditional summer and winter pastures increasingly difficult.

• Cultural erosion occurs as climate-related changes hinder intergenerational knowledge transfer.

The effects of climate change on Yörük practices were analyzed along two dimensions. While Figure 5 explores the specific impacts of climatic variables on traditional practices and outlines local adaptation strategies, Figure 6 presents a general risk assessment matrix based on a threat-based scoring model. This dual-layered approach integrates practice-based evaluation with threat-based risk analysis.

Figure 6

According to the risk assessment results (Figure 6), the depletion of water resources and loss of pastureland emerged as the most critical threats, scoring the highest risk levels. These two factors directly jeopardize pastoralism, the core of Yörük livelihood systems. Moreover, climate-induced extreme weather events are creating physical obstacles along migration routes and disrupting traditional planning calendars. The weakening of intergenerational knowledge transfer places cultural sustainability at risk, while rural youth migration adds uncertainty to the continuity of this heritage.

These risk analysis findings are essential not only for understanding the current situation but also for anticipating future vulnerabilities. Holistic strategies involving water resource management, cultural memory preservation, and local participation-based policymaking are strongly recommended.

The TEK of the Yörüks presents a more sustainable alternative to conventional agriculture. Transhumance and nature-aligned resource management support biodiversity, soil health, and climate resilience, aligning with global sustainability agendas. Figure 7 contrasts these practices with modern agricultural systems, underscoring their adaptive value for food security and rural development. However, modernization processes and policy constraints pose significant threats to the future of Yörük culture and knowledge systems. Therefore, the development of sustainable agricultural policies and the integration of Yörük ecological knowledge into contemporary agriculture have become critical necessities.

Figure 7

The black tent, a fundamental element of the transhumant pastoral lifestyle, is traditionally constructed from natural materials and symbolizes both climate resilience and cultural identity. Today, however, the number of Yörük communities that continue this traditional lifestyle in the Central Taurus Mountains has significantly declined. Pack animals such as camels and horses have largely been replaced by tractors and motor vehicles (Figure 8). As a result, black tents are now more often preserved as heritage symbols than used in daily life.

Figure 8

Access to water has also become a major issue due to climate change and the decreasing availability of natural springs. In highland pastures without direct access, water is transported using mobile tanks (Figure 9). Small ruminants are often taken to rented grazing lands located 10–15 kilometers away, with fees determined according to the number of animals.

Figure 9

The Central Taurus offers a unique setting where Mediterranean and continental climatic transitions shape pastoral practices in distinctive ways. Here, a particular form of Yörük transhumance pastoralism has evolved, with ecological contrasts influencing grazing strategies, migration distances, and resource-use patterns (Figures 8, 9). This illustrates the role of local climatic variability in shaping Yörük adaptive capacity.

The transhumance routes of the Yörüks have historically followed the valleys of rivers draining the Taurus Mountains, structured along lower, middle, and upper courses. Since water sources are distributed along these corridors, these routes have largely been preserved over centuries. However, newly constructed mountain and forest roads have recently facilitated access to highland pastures, causing traditional routes, once defined by natural water availability, to overlap with modern roads. In response, Yörük communities have increasingly diverted water from natural springs to roadside locations, supported by the construction of fountains and troughs.

In recent years, Yörük tents have also been repurposed for tourism, reflecting a shift toward alternative livelihoods. Families now use them in highland areas to host visitors, integrating cultural heritage with eco-tourism initiatives (Figure 10). Younger generations, who possess expertise in navigating mountain landscapes, are increasingly employed as guides and staff in these activities. While these practices provide supplementary income, they also contribute to shifting labor away from traditional pastoralism. Families generally express a preference for agro-ecotourism models that are small-scale, participatory, and respectful of local values.

Figure 10

Yörük livestock practices, grounded in the transhumance cycle between summer highlands and winter pastures, ensure the continuity of food production while enabling the balanced use of natural resources. Small-scale ruminant farming makes these systems climate-adaptive, cost-efficient, and rooted in local knowledge, directly contributing to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). Within a self-sufficient production cycle, Yörüks have traditionally produced essential foods such as milk, yogurt, cheese, and butter, while also supporting local economies.

Seasonal migration reduces overgrazing, natural fertilizers maintain soil fertility, and the use of local seeds supports biodiversity, thereby contributing to SDG 15 (Life on Land). In addition, these low-carbon, adaptive practices offer significant potential for SDG 13 (Climate Action).

TEK of Yörüks extends far beyond heritage value: it represents a strategic knowledge system capable of informing sustainable rural development, food security, and ecosystem-based climate adaptation. Yet, its visibility remains limited, requiring stronger institutional recognition and support.

4 Discussion

TEK, rooted in long-term human–nature interactions, contributes to ecosystem management, climate adaptation, and sustainable resource use (Berkes, 2008; Folke et al., 2010). Beyond its cultural value, it also provides forward-looking solutions by enhancing local capacities to address ecological challenges (Berkes, 2008; IPBES, 2019). The ecological strategies of the Yörüks are consistent with Nature-based Solutions (NbS), which emphasize the role of local knowledge in ecosystem resilience, biodiversity conservation, and climate adaptation (Dubey et al., 2021). Yet, the sustainability of this system depends on intergenerational transmission (Yolcu and Aça, 2019), which has weakened in recent decades and now threatens cultural continuity.

The IPBES Global Assessment emphasizes that local knowledge systems are essential not only for cultural continuity but also for their role in biodiversity conservation. The experience of communities such as the Yörüks is therefore strategically important for informing both historical understanding and present-day policy-making (IPBES, 2019; Sharifian et al., 2022). Pastoralism, plays a central role in maintaining ecosystem services (Nori and Farinella, 2020), and Yörük practices such as rotational grazing and seasonal migration clearly demonstrate this contribution.

Historically, transhumant pastoralism has enabled the use of ecologically marginal regions such as steppes and mountains, transforming them into productive landscapes through highland–lowland migration cycles (Aşk, 1987; Matsubara, 2022). This system has ensured sustainable use of rangelands and minimized overgrazing. The adaptive strategies of Yörüks parallel those of other pastoralist groups, such as the Kazakhs, Berbers, and Mongols, who also developed environmentally attuned production systems that support carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and ecosystem services (Fernandez-Gimenez, 2000; Jenet et al., 2016; Mistry and Berardi, 2016; Drees et al., 2022). In the Himalayas and Hindu Kush, similar systems have enhanced agricultural resilience (Ahmad et al., 2025; Kumar et al., 2025; Peter et al., 2024).

In Türkiye, TEK of Yörüks continues to survive, particularly in the Mediterranean and Aladağlar regions, where animal husbandry and small-scale agriculture remain embedded in natural processes (Güç, 2010). Transhumance serves economic, social, and ecological purposes, reinforcing solidarity, cultural identity, and environmental adaptation (Ak, 2022; Daşçı and Çomaklı, 2006; Koc et al., 2008; Reid et al., 2014; Samakov and Foggin, 2022; Somuncu, 2005). However, population decline, sedentarization, and modernization have disrupted knowledge transfer and weakened ecological strategies (Tunçdilek, 1964, 1977; Dal and Gönençgil, 2018; Uslu, 2020; Uslu and Köküs, 2020). Modernization, rural development policies, and urbanization have further exacerbated this fragility (Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi, 2018; Görgülü, 2023). Restricted access to water and pasture degradation now represents the most critical vulnerabilities, as identified through field-based risk assessments.

Yörük culture constitutes not only an economic system but also a knowledge framework enriched with symbolic, ritualistic, and spatial meanings (Kıvrak, 2014; Genç and Koyuncu Okca, 2017). Elements such as black tents, goat-hair weavings, migration route observations, medicinal plant knowledge, and animal health strategies form the cultural memory of the Yörüks’ relationship with nature (Johansen, 2005; Işık, 2006). For instance, migration timing is determined through intuitive knowledge based on natural indicators (Demir and Öz, 2019; Küçükaydın, 2021; Kıvrak, 2017). These practices should not be seen as isolated traditions but as integral components of TEK that sustain ecological strategies and ecosystem services.

This system represents both a cultural framework and an environmentally sustainable mode of production. Pastoral practices contribute to ecosystem dynamics, including processes such as seed dispersal (Kıvrak, 2017). However, formal grazing restrictions (Resmî Gazete, 2012; Resmî Gazete, 2020), the shrinking of grazing lands, and the drying of water sources present major threats to the continuity of this system.

Despite these challenges, traditional woven products, mobile shelters, and environmentally friendly production practices represent tangible reflections of both economic and cultural sustainability (Ertürk and Şanlı, 2018; Özden and Atmiş, 2006; Genç, 2020). Since the rise of the modern nation-state, transhumant pastoral practices have been increasingly restricted, leading to the disruption of knowledge transmission (Matsubara, 2022; Sharifian et al., 2022). This transformation has especially affected younger generations, diminishing their connection to transhumant pastoral life and weakening cultural memory.

The Yörük population engaged in transhumant pastoralism, estimated at around 100,000 in 1965, has since declined dramatically (Doğan and Doğan, 2004; Beşirli and Erdal, 2008; Şenesen, 2011; Göçer, 2023), with over 90% transitioning to a sedentary lifestyle (Matsubara, 2022). This shift signifies not only the loss of a way of life but also the erosion of the knowledge system that underpins TEK. In response, strategies such as cooperativism, cultural branding, and community-based ecotourism have emerged as potential pathways to support both cultural continuity and ecological sustainability (Eröz, 1991; Özen and Direk, 2023). Moreover, the installation of traditional tents for tourism in the Taurus Mountains presents hopeful potential for cultural promotion.

European experiences provide a useful comparative framework. Initiatives such as eco-museums, UNESCO’s recognition of agro-pastoral cultural landscapes, and EU agro-environmental subsidies (e.g., HNV farming) have facilitated the revival of pastoral systems in countries like France, Spain, and Italy (Nori and Scoones, 2019; Nori and Farinella, 2020). By contrast, Yörük transhumance in Türkiye, despite its ecological and cultural significance, lacks comparable institutional protection and visibility. Importantly, these contexts are not directly comparable: Europe benefits from strong policy frameworks and financial mechanisms, while Yörük pastoralism faces grazing restrictions, demographic decline, and limited recognition. At the same time, the ecological knowledge and adaptive strategies of Yörük communities may themselves provide valuable perspectives for Europe, particularly in semi-arid transition zones where Mediterranean and continental climates converge.

Comparable research demonstrates that manure- and residue-based practices enhance food production, soil conservation, and climate resilience (Dubey et al., 2022), reinforcing the significance of TEK as a sustainable alternative to high-input agricultural models. Recent international developments further emphasize the relevance of this study. UNESCO recognized transhumance as an Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2019 (UNESCO, 2019), and the United Nations General Assembly declared 2026 the International Year of Pastoralism and Pastoralists (UNGA, 2022). Together, these frameworks reaffirm the global significance of Yörük pastoralism.

5 Conclusion

The long-standing relationship between Yörüks and their environment represents not only a cultural legacy but also a living knowledge system that supports climate adaptation, ecosystem-based production, and sustainable rural development. Their seasonal mobility between summer and winter pastures enables the cyclical use of natural resources, thereby sustaining provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services.

TEK, expressed through low-input pastoral practices and organic soil management, aligns with global SDGs. By supporting livelihood diversification through small-scale agriculture, herding, handicrafts, and ecotourism, Yörük knowledge contributes to rural economies and strengthens community resilience.

However, modernization, sedentarization, and youth outmigration have weakened intergenerational transmission and ecological resilience. Addressing these vulnerabilities requires revitalization strategies such as cooperativism, ecotourism, cultural branding, digitization of oral traditions, and locally grounded education models.

References

• 1

  AcırH. (2020). Bozahmetli Yörükleri: Düşenbe, Manavgat, Serik, Seydişehir. Ankara: Gece Kitaplığı.

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AğaoğluB. (2010). Göçebelik Kaynakçası. İstanbul, Türkiye. Available online at: https://turkbibliography.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/id319.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AhmadZ.PostigoJ. C.Fazlur-RahmanH.KH.AltafF. (2025). Changing mountain pastoralism and its impacts in the Hindu Kush Himalayan region: the case of Kushum, Pakistan. Nomadic Peoples29, 70–100. doi: 10.3828/whpnp.63837646691066

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AkM. (2022). Teke Yörükleri (1800–1900). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AşkM. K. (1987). Yaylak ve Mera Islahı. Ankara: Kurtuluş Ofset Basımevi.

  • Google Scholar

• 6

  Atalayİ. (2002). Türkiye'nin ekolojik bölgeleri. İzmir: Orman ve Su İşleri Bakanlığı.

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  AvenT. (2016). Risk assessment and risk management: review of recent advances on their foundation. Eur. J. Oper. Res.253, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BatesD. G. (1973). Nomads and farmers: a study of the Yörük of southeastern Turkey. Michigan: Museum of Anthropology.

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BerkesF. (1993) in Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts and cases. ed. JulianI. T. (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge International Development Research Centre).

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BerkesF. (2008). Sacred ecology. New York: Routledge.

  • Google Scholar

• 11

  BeşirliH.Erdalİ. (Eds.) (2008). Osmanlıdan Cumhuriyete Yörükler ve Türkmenler. Ankara, Türkiye: Phoenix.

  • Google Scholar

• 12

  BüyükşahinF.GüneşG. (2016). The importance of traditional ecological knowledge: The case of Sarikecili Yuruks. Hacettepe University e-Journal of Sociological Research, 1–21. ISSN1304-2823. Available online at: http://www.sdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/makaleler/FerhatBuyuksahinGulGunes.pdf.

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  CahenC. (1968). Pre-ottoman Turkey: a general survey of the material and spiritual culture and history, c. 1071–1330. London: Sidgwick & Jackson.

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  ÇelikA. (2006). Bir Yörük çocuğunun sergüzeşti ve Yörüklerin dünyası. Ankara: Kardelen Sanat Yayınları.

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Cohen-ShachamE.WaltersG.JanzenC.MaginnisS. (2016). Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges, vol. 97. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 2036.

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  DalN.GönençgilB. (2018). An approach for the limitation of mountain and mountain areas in Turkey, International Geography Symposium on the 30th Anniversary of TUCAUM 3-6 Ekim 2018 /3-6 October 2018, 907-913, Ankara: Ankara University.

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  DaşçıM.ÇomaklıB. (2006). Yaylacılık ve tarımsal açıdan önemi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi37, 275–280.

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  DemirR.ÖzM. G. (2019). Halk Meteorolojisi ve Bir Meteoroloji Örneği: Kocakarı Hesabı. J. Acad. Soc. Sci. Stud.2, 213–222. doi: 10.9761/JASSS7652

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  DoğanM. S.DoğanC. (2004). Tarihsel gelişim sürecinde Yörükler. Istanbul J. Sociol. Stud.30, 15–29.

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  DreesL.LiehrS.BatbuyanB.MargO.MehringM. (2022). In search of a nomadic pastoralism for the 21st century. A transdisciplinary development of future scenarios to foster a social-ecological transformation in Mongolia. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res.35, 481–505. doi: 10.1080/13511610.2022.2100744

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  DubeyP. K.SinghA.ChaurasiaR.PandeyK. K. (2021). Fostering nature-based solutions for ecorestoration and attaining United Nations sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod.298:126680. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126680

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  DubeyP. K.SinghA.ChaurasiaR.PandeyK. K.BundelaA. K.SinghG. S.et al. (2022). Animal manures and plant residue-based amendments for sustainable rice-wheat production and soil fertility improvement in eastern Uttar Pradesh, North India. Ecol. Eng.177:106551. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106551

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  DumbravăV.IacobV. S. (2013). Using probability–impact matrix in analysis and risk assessment projects. J. Knowl. Manag. Econ. Inf. Technol.42, 76–96.

  • Google Scholar

• 24

  DurukanA.GülelH. C. (2020). Yoruk's efforts to preserve the culture of their ancestors and the changes experienced. Safran Kültür ve Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi3, 56–67.

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  EkentokM. (2022). Batı Anadolu'nun Türkleşme süreci ve Aydın sancağında yörükler (Master's thesis). Aydın Türkiye: Aydın Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  EPA (2024). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ecological Risk Assessment. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/risk/ecological-risk-assessment#tab-2

  • Google Scholar

• 27

  ErözM. (1991). Yörükler. İstanbul: Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Vakfı.

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  ErtürkD.ŞanlıS. (2018). Yörük Kültürü ve Zanaatleri. Konya, Türkiye: Çizgi Kitabevi.

  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Fernandez-GimenezM. E. (2000). The role of Mongolian nomadic pastoralists' ecological knowledge in rangeland management. Ecol. Appl.10, 1318–1326. doi: 10.2307/2641287

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  FolkeC.CarpenterS. R.WalkerB.SchefferM.ChapinT.RockströmJ. (2010). Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol. Soc.15:20. doi: 10.5751/ES-03610-150420

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  GençM. (2020). Isparta'nın somut olmayan kültürel mirası Isparta çevresi yörük kültürü, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Yayınları, Yayın no 108. Türkiye: Isparta.

  • Google Scholar

• 32

  GençM.Koyuncu OkcaA. (2017). Yörüklerin geçim kaynağı ve dokumalarında: keçi. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi5, 85–102.

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  GöçerA. (2023). Yahyalı ve Aladağlar'da Yörükler. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  GörgülüG. (2023). Türkler, Türkmenler, Yörükler: Kökleri, göçleri, gelenekleri, örf ve adetleri. İstanbul, Türkiye: Kavim Yayıncılık.

  • Google Scholar

• 35

  GüçŞ. (2010). Yörük Sözlüğü. Ankara: Berikan Yayınevi.

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  HalaçoğluY. (2009). Anadolu’da aşiretler, cemaatler, oymaklar (1453–1650), vol. I-VI: Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara.

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  HarunoğullarıM.PolatY. (2018). Mersin-Arslanköy Yörüklerinin Yaylacılık Faaliyetleri ve Sorunları. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi27, 71–86.

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  İnalcıkH. (2005). Osmanlı imparatorluğu: klasik çağ (1300–1600). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık (YKY).

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  İnalcıkH. (2014). The Yörüks: their origins, expansion and economic role. Cedrus2, 467–495. doi: 10.13113/CEDRUS.201406472

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  İnalcıkH.QuataertD. (Eds.) (1994). An economic and social history of the ottoman empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1300–1914.

  • Google Scholar

• 41

  IPBES (2019) in Global assessment report of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. eds. BrondízioE. S.SetteleJ.DíazS.NgoH. T. (Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat).

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  IşıkG. (2006). Anatolian Turkish Shepherd Dogs: The End of the Yoruk Sheepdogs. Ankara: Likya Kitap.

  • Google Scholar

• 43

  JenetA.BuonoN.Di LelloS.GomarascaM.HeineC.MasonS.et al. (2016). The path to greener pastures. Pastoralism, the backbone of the world’s drylands. Brussels, Belgium: Vétérinaires Sans Frontières International (VSF-International).

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  JohansenU. (2005). 50 yıl önce Türkiye'de Yörüklerin yayla hayatı, vol. 32. Ankara, Türkiye: TC Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı.

  • Google Scholar

• 45

  KarakayaH. (2016) in Geleneksel ekolojik bilginin hayata yansıması: Afyonkarahisar yöresinde doğal yöntemlerle yoğurt yapma teknikleri. Kazdağları ve Geleneksel Ekolojik Bilgi. ed. YolcuM. A. (Çanakkale: Paradigma Akademi).

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  KaştanY.KaştanY. (2009). Antalya yöresi yörüklerinde av. Acta Turcica Çevrimiçi Tematik Türkoloji Dergisi1, 413–433.

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  KıvrakR. (2014). Yürüyen Türkler: Yörükler. İstanbul: Ege Basım.

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  KıvrakR. (2017). Yörük Obalarımız. İstanbul: Dahi Yayıncılık.

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  KocA.ErkovanH. I.SerinY. (2008). Changes in vegetation and soil properties under semi-nomadic animal raising areas in highlands, rangelands of Turkey. Curr. World Environ.3, 15–20. doi: 10.12944/CWE.3.1.02

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  KöprülüM. F. (1991). Osmanlı Devleti'nin kuruluşu. 4th Edn. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  KüçükaydınA. (2021). Ulla: Yörük obasında bir Alman kızı. Ankara, Türkiye: HS Yayıncılık.

  • Google Scholar

• 52

  KumarP.SardaR.YadavA.AshwaniGonencgilB.RaiA. (2025). Farmer’s perception of climate change and factors determining the adaptation strategies to ensure sustainable agriculture in the Cold Desert region of Himachal Himalayas, India. Sustainability17:2548. doi: 10.3390/su17062548

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  LindnerR. P. (1983). Nomads and Ottomans in medieval Anatolia. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  LinkovI.BridgesT.CreutzigF.DeckerJ.Fox-LentC.KrögerW.et al. (2014). Changing the resilience paradigm. Nat. Clim. Chang.4, 407–409. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2227

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  MatsubaraM. (2022). Göçebeliğin Dünyası: Türk Göçebelerinden Çoşlu Yörüklerinin Etnografyası. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Başkanlığı Yayını: 588, Araştırma İnceleme Dizisi: 207.

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  MistryJ.BerardiA. (2016). Bridging indigenous and scientific knowledge. Science352, 1274–1275. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf1160

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi (2018). I. Yörük-Türkmen Araştırma Merkezleri Koordinasyon ve İşbirliği Çalıştayı Sonuç Raporu. Muğla: Yörük-Türkmen Tarihi ve Kültürü Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi. Muğla, Türkiye.

  • Google Scholar

• 58

  MuşmalH.GözelH. B. (2023). Türkiye’de Sosyal Bilimler Literatüründe Yörükler (1922–2022). Konya, Türkiye: Palet Yayınları.

  • Google Scholar

• 59

  NewM.ReckienD.VinerD.AdlerC.CheongS.-M.CondeC.et al. (2022). “Decision-making options for managing risk” in Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. eds. PörtnerH.-O.RobertsD. C.TignorM.PoloczanskaE. S.MintenbeckK.AlegríaA.et al. (Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press), 2539–2654.

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  NoriM.FarinellaD. (2020). “Mobility and migration in Mediterranean Europe: the case of agro-pastoralism” in Migration, agriculture and rural development (Cham: Springer), 103134.

  • Google Scholar

• 61

  NoriM.ScoonesI. (2019). Pastoralism, uncertainty and resilience: global lessons from the margins. Pastoralism9:10. doi: 10.1186/s13570-019-0146-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  OkcaA. K.GençM. (2017). Yörük Göçlerinde Deve. J. Acad. Soc. Sci. Stud.5, 225–236.

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  OrhonluC. (1987). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda Aşiretlerin İskanı. İstanbul: Eren Yayıncılık.

  • Google Scholar

• 64

  ÖzdemirN. (2018). Geleneksel bilgi ve kültür ekonomisi. Türk Dünyası İncelemeleri Dergisi8/1, 1–28.

  • Google Scholar

• 65

  ÖzdenS.AtmişE. (2006). The mountain-based culture of the Taurus Yörüks: cultural and economic approaches. Modern Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi2, 157–164.

  • Google Scholar

• 66

  ÖzenH.DirekM. (2023). “Ekolojik ve Sürdürülebilir Bir Yaşam Örneği: Yörük Kültürü 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Ecological Agriculture (2nd a)” March 13-15 2023, p334, Konya, Türkiye.

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  PeterS.NiessS.BatjavB.DejidN.DreesL.JäschkeY.et al. (2024). The role of traditional ecological knowledge, given the transformation of pastoralism in central and eastern Mongolia. Ambio53, 1813–1829. doi: 10.1007/s13280-024-02057-w

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  QuataertD. (2005). The Ottoman Empire, 1700–1922, vol. 34. Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 69

  ReidR. S.Fernández-GiménezM. E.GalvinK. A. (2014). Dynamics and resilience of rangelands and pastoral peoples around the globe. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.39, 217–242. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-020713-163329

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  Resmî Gazete (2012). Ormanlarda ve Orman İçinde Bulunan Otlak, Yaylak ve Kışlaklarda Hayvan Otlatılmasına İlişkin Usul ve Esaslar Hakkında Yönetmelik, Resmî Gazete, Sayı: 28350, Tarihi: 11.07.2012. Available online at: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2012/07/20120711.htm

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  Resmî Gazete (2020). Göçer Hayvanların Tanımlanması ve Nakilleri Hakkında Yönetmelik., Resmî Gazete, Sayı: 31318, Tarihi: 28.11.2020. Available online at: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2020/11/20201128-4.htm

  • Google Scholar

• 72

  SamakovA.FogginJ. M. (2022). Territories of life in west and Central Asia and the Caucasus: diversity, present status, and threats. ICCA consortium: worldwide. Available at: report.territoriesoflife.org/national-and-regional-analysis/west-central-asia. Creative commons attribution-NonCommercial license, 3.

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  ŞenesenR. (2011). Osmaniye düziçi’nde Dünden Bugüne Yaylacılık ve Varsak Türkmenlerinin Yayla Göçü. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi20, 267–286.

  • Google Scholar

• 74

  SharifianA.Fernández-LlamazaresÁ.WarioH. T.MolnárZ.CabezaM. (2022). Dynamics of pastoral traditional ecological knowledge: a global state-of-the-art review. Ecol. Soc.27:14. doi: 10.5751/ES-12918-270114

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  SomuncuM. (2005). Aladağlar: Yaylacılık ve Dağ Göçebeliği Konusunda bir Araştırma. Ankara: Gündüz Eğitim ve Yayıncılık.

  • Google Scholar

• 76

  TengöM.BrondizioE. S.ElmqvistT.MalmerP.SpierenburgM. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio43, 579–591. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  TolunayA.TürkoğluT.ÖzmişM. (2018). Batı Akdeniz Bölgesinde Hayvancılıkla Uğraşan Konargöçer Toplulukların Göç Yollarının CBS Kullanılarak Belirlenmesi ve Haritalaması. ISNOS-MED 2018. Isparta Uygulamalı Bilimler Üniversitesi. Isparta.

  • Google Scholar

• 78

  TunçdilekN. (1964). Türkiye’de Yaylalar ve Yaylacılık. İstanbul Üniversitesi Coğrafya Enstitü- sü Dergisi7, 15–28.

  • Google Scholar

• 79

  TunçdilekN. (1977). Türkiye’nin dağlık ve ormanlık bölgelerinin ekonomik problemleri. İstanbul Üniversitesi Coğrafya Enstitüsü Dergisi22, 1–16.

  • Google Scholar

• 80

  Tuztaş HorzumluA. H. (2014). Konup-göçmek, yerleşmek ve yaşamak: Sarıkeçililerde mekan ve anlatı. Yeditepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü (Doctoral dissertation). İstanbul, Türkiye: Doktora Tezi.

  • Google Scholar

• 81

  UNESCO (2019). United nations educational, scientific and cultural organization. Transhumance, the seasonal droving of livestock along migratory routes in the Mediterranean and in the Alps. Available online at: https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/transhumance-the-seasonal-droving-of-livestock-along-migratory-routes-in-the-mediterranean-and-in-the-alps-01470

  • Google Scholar

• 82

  UNGA (2022). United Nations general assembly. (March 15). International year of rangelands and pastoralists, 2026 (resolution A/RES/76/129). United Nations digital library. Available online at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3965711

  • Google Scholar

• 83

  UsluF. (Ed.) (2020). Yörük Araştırmaları 1. Konya, Türkiye: Palet Yayınları.

  • Google Scholar

• 84

  UsluF.KöküsC. (Eds.) (2020). Yörük araştırmaları-2. Konya, Türkiye: Palet Yayınları.

  • Google Scholar

• 85

  VasváriT. (2015). Risk, risk perception, risk management it is noteworthy ta review of the literature. Public Fin. Q.60, 29–48.

  • Google Scholar

• 86

  WallK. D. (2011). The trouble with risk matrices. DRMI Working Papers Ongoing Research. Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/10945/32570

  • Google Scholar

• 87

  YolcuM. A. (2018). Geleneksel ekolojik bilgi bağlamında Çanakkale halk botaniği. Çanakkale Araş- tırmaları Türk Yıllığı, ss.16, 63–77. doi: 10.17518/canakkalearastirmalari.419260

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  YolcuM. A. (2024). Çanakkale kıyı balıkçılığına dair geleneksel ekolojik bilgi. Uluslararası Deniz ve Kıyı Folkloru Sempozyumu (Muğla, 5–7 Ekim 2023). Ankara: TC Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Başkanlığı Yayınları, 265–272.

  • Google Scholar

• 89

  YolcuM. A.AçaM. (2019). Geleneksel ekolojik bilgi ve folklor. Folklor/Edebiyat25, 861–871. doi: 10.22559/folklor.1086

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar