GELİŞEN ŞEHİRLERDE YÖNETİŞİM ZORLUKLARI VE MİKRO HAREKETLİLİĞİN POLİTİKA ENTEGRASYONU: ​​TÜRKİYE'DEN KANITLAR

Abstract

Mikromobilite sistemlerinin hızlı yayılımı, sürdürülebilir kentsel mobilite için yeni fırsatlar sunarken aynı zamanda karmaşık yönetim zorlukları da yaratmıştır. Mevcut çalışmalar öncelikle kullanıcı davranışı, güvenlik ve çevresel etkilere odaklanmış olsa da, özellikle gelişmekte olan ekonomilerde yönetimle ilgili boyutlar nispeten az araştırılmıştır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki mikromobilite sistemlerinin yönetim yapısını incelemekte ve kentsel ulaşım ağlarına sürdürülebilir entegrasyonlarını etkileyen kurumsal ve düzenleyici zorlukları belirlemektedir. Araştırma, ulusal mevzuat, belediye düzenlemeleri, uluslararası politika çerçeveleri ve akademik literatürün belge analizine dayalı nitel bir karşılaştırmalı yönetim yaklaşımı benimsemektedir. Analitik çerçeve, düzenleyici düzenlemeleri, kurumsal kapasiteleri ve politika entegrasyon mekanizmalarını değerlendirmek için yönetim teorisi, sürdürülebilir mobilite yönetimi ve sosyo-teknik geçiş perspektiflerini entegre etmektedir. Bulgular, Türkiye'deki mikromobilite yönetiminin düzenleyici parçalanma, sınırlı yerel yönetim kapasitesi, yetersiz veri yönetimi mekanizmaları ve daha geniş ulaşım planlama süreçleriyle zayıf entegrasyon ile karakterize olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Avrupa Birliği yönetim modelleriyle karşılaştırıldığında, Türk düzenleyici uygulamaları büyük ölçüde reaktif ve kurumsal olarak parçalanmış durumdadır. Analiz ayrıca, etkili mikromobilite entegrasyonunun hükümet aktörleri arasında daha güçlü koordinasyon, standartlaştırılmış veri paylaşım mekanizmaları, çok modlu ulaşım planlaması ve performans odaklı düzenleyici çerçeveler gerektirdiğini göstermektedir. Bu zorlukların üstesinden gelmek için çalışma, ulusal stratejik koordinasyonu, belediye veri yönetimi standartlarını, çok modlu entegrasyonu, güvenlik düzenlemelerini ve uyarlanabilir lisanslama mekanizmalarını vurgulayan entegre bir yönetim çerçevesi önermektedir. Önerilen çerçeve, mikromobilite yönetimi üzerine giderek artan literatüre katkıda bulunmakta ve sürdürülebilir kentsel mobilite geçişlerini desteklemek isteyen gelişmekte olan şehirler için politika önerileri sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Mikromobilite
• Yönetişim
• Sürdürülebilir Kentsel Mobilite
• Politika Entegrasyonu
• Kentsel Ulaşım

Governance Challenges and Policy Integration of Micromobility in Emerging Cities: Evidence from Türkiye

Abstract

The rapid expansion of micromobility systems has created new opportunities for sustainable urban mobility while also generating complex governance challenges. Although existing research has largely focused on user behaviour, safety, and environmental impacts, governance-related dimensions remain comparatively underexamined, particularly in emerging economies. This study examines the current regulatory and institutional framework of micromobility governance in Türkiye. It adopts a comparative governance analysis based on document analysis of national legislation, municipal regulations, international policy frameworks, and the academic literature. The analytical framework is grounded in Governance Theory and Policy Integration Theory and evaluates regulatory governance, institutional coordination, data governance, infrastructure integration, and policy integration. The findings indicate that the current regulatory framework for micromobility in Türkiye primarily focuses on operational and legal requirements, while governance components such as institutional coordination, data governance, infrastructure integration, and policy integration are addressed to a more limited extent. Compared with European Union policy frameworks, Turkish regulations place greater emphasis on operational regulation than on integrated governance mechanisms. The analysis further suggests that strengthening institutional coordination, standardising data-governance practices, enhancing multimodal transport integration, and adopting performance-oriented regulatory approaches could support more comprehensive micromobility governance. To address these challenges, the study proposes an integrated governance framework emphasising national strategic coordination, municipal data-governance standards, multimodal integration, safety regulation, and adaptive licensing mechanisms. The proposed framework contributes to the growing literature on micromobility governance and provides a comparative analytical framework that may support policy evaluation in similar institutional and regulatory contexts.

Keywords

• Micromobility
• Sustainable Urban Mobility
• Governance
• Policy Integration
• Urban Transportation

References

1. [1] Nikitas, A. (2019). How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy Makers and Mobility Providers. Sustainability, 11(11), 3206. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113206
2. [2] Banister, D. (2008). The Sustainable Mobility Paradigm. Transport Policy, 15(2), 73–80.
3. [3] Bozzi, A. D., & Aguilera, A. (2021). Shared E-Scooters: A Review of Uses, Health and Environmental Impacts, and Policy Implications of a New Micro-Mobility Service. Sustainability, 13(15), 8676.
4. [4] Caggiani, L., Camporeale, R., Di Bari, D., & Ottomanelli, M. (2023). A Geofencing-Based Methodology for Speed Limit Regulation and User Safety in E-Scooter Sharing Systems. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2023.2201681
5. [5] Carrese, S., Giacchetti, T., Nigro, M., Algeri, G., & Ceccarelli, G. (2021). Analysis and Management of Electric Scooter Sharing Services in Italy. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems (MT-ITS 2021).
6. [6] D'Andreagiovanni, F., Nardin, A., & Carrese, S. (2022). An Analysis of Service Coverage and Regulation of E-Scooter Sharing in Rome (Italy). Transportation Research Procedia, 60, 440–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2021.12.057
7. [7] European Commission. (2011). White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System. COM(2011) 144 final. Brussels: European Commission.
8. [8] European Commission. (2013). Together Towards Competitive and Resource-Efficient Urban Mobility. COM(2013) 913 final. Brussels: European Commission.

9. [9] European Commission. (2019). Guidelines for Developing and Implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (Second Edition). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
10. [10] European Commission. (2019). The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 final. Brussels: European Commission.
11. [11] European Commission. (2020). Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy – Putting European Transport on Track for the Future. COM(2020) 789 final. Brussels: European Commission.
12. [12] Ge, M., & Wang, D. (2019). Low-Carbon Transport Transitions and Sustainable Urban Mobility. Transportation Research Record, 41, 421–428.
13. [13] Geurs, K., Grigolon, A., Münzel, K., Gkiotsalitis, K., Duran-Rodas, D., Büttner, B., Kirchberger, C., Pappers, J., Martinez Ramirez, L., Graf, A., Hansel, J., Gkrava, R., & Klementschitz, R. (2024). The SmartHubs Integration Ladder: A Conceptual Model for the Categorisation of Shared Mobility Hubs. Transport Reviews, 44(1), 112–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2239499
14. [14] Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change. Routledge.
15. [15] Gössling, S. (2020). Integrating E-Scooters in Urban Transportation: Problems, Policies, and the Prospect of System Change. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 79, 102230.
16. [16] International Transport Forum (ITF). (2020). Safe Micromobility. Paris: OECD Publishing.
17. [17] International Transport Forum (ITF). (2021). Micromobility, Equity and Sustainability: Summary and Conclusions. ITF Roundtable Reports No. 185. Paris: OECD Publishing.
18. [18] Jiang, H., Geertman, S., & Witte, P. (2022). Smart Urban Governance: An Alternative to Technocratic "Smartness". GeoJournal, 87(3), 1639–1655.
19. [19] Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Avelino, F. (2017). Sustainability Transitions Research: Transforming Science and Practice for Societal Change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42, 599–626. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340
20. [20] McKenzie, G. (2020). Urban Mobility in the Sharing Economy: A Spatiotemporal Comparison of Shared Mobility Services. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 79, 101418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2019.101418
21. [21] Mergel, I. (2016). Agile Innovation Management in Government: A Research Agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 516–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.07.004
22. [22] National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). (2017). Blueprint for Autonomous Urbanism. New York, NY: NACTO.
23. [23] National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). (2017). Designing for All Ages and Abilities: Contextual Guidance for High-Comfort Bicycle Facilities. New York, NY: NACTO.
24. [24] National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). (2019). Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility. New York, NY: NACTO.
25. [25] National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). (2020). Streets for Pandemic Response and Recovery. New York, NY: NACTO.
26. [26] National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), & International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA). (2019). Managing Mobility Data: Principles and Best Practices for Cities and Private Sector Partners.
27. [27] Oeschger, G., Carroll, P., & Caulfield, B. (2020). Micromobility and Public Transport Integration: The Current State of Knowledge. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 89, 102628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102628
28. [28] Oluwajana, S. D., & Wang, C. M. (2023). Rationale for Governance and Effective Guidelines Towards Attainment of Shared E-Scooter Micromobility Benefits in Windsor, Ontario. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 13, 101051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2023.101051
29. [29] Roig-Costa, B., Miralles-Guasch, C., & Marquet, O. (2024). Disrupting Modal Shift: Examining Adaptation Strategies to Public Transport E-Scooter Bans in Barcelona. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 18(12), 1072–1085. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2024.2434881
30. [30] Shaheen, S., & Cohen, A. (2019). Shared Micromobility Policy Toolkit: Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing. Berkeley, CA: Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California, Berkeley. https://doi.org/10.7922/G2TH8JW7
31. [31] Sochor, J., Arby, H., Karlsson, I. C. M., & Sarasini, S. (2018). A Topological Approach to Mobility as a Service: A Proposed Tool for Understanding Requirements and Effects, and for Aiding the Integration of Societal Goals. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 27, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2018.12.003
32. [32] Republic of Türkiye, Official Gazette. (2020). Law No. 7261 on the Establishment of the Turkish Environment Agency and Amendments to Certain Laws. Official Gazette No. 31307.
33. [33] Republic of Türkiye, Official Gazette. (2021). Regulation on Electric Scooters. Official Gazette No. 31454, 14 April 2021.
34. [34] Republic of Türkiye, Official Gazette. (2019). Regulation on Bicycle Lanes. Official Gazette No. 30976, 12 December 2019.
35. [35] Metropolitan Municipality Transportation Coordination Centers (UKOME). * İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality UKOME. (2021). Directive on the Shared Electric Scooter System. UKOME Decision No. 2021/4-8, 3 June 2021. * Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality UKOME. (2022). Directive on the Shared Electric Scooter System. UKOME Decision No. 2022/090, 13 April 2022. * Adana Metropolitan Municipality UKOME. (2021). Directive on the Shared Electric Scooter System. UKOME Decision No. 2021/148, 28 July 2021.