Sürdürülebilir Kentsel Politikalara Açılan Yeni Bir Pencere: Kentsel Dirençlilik

Year 2022, , 1522 - 1546, 15.12.2022

Korkmaz Yıldırım

https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.1009701

Abstract

Hızlı kentleşme başta olmak üzere yaşanan sosyoekonomik ve politik olgular sonucu kentsel alanlarda tecrübe edilen doğal afetler, iklim koşullarındaki düzensizlikler, salgın hastalıklar, terör olayları, finansal sıkıntılar gibi risk ve tehditlere karşı gerekli tedbirlerin benimsenmesi ve uyum sağlanması bir tercih olmaktan ziyade zorunluluk haline gelmiştir. Bu durum akademik çalışmalar ve uluslararası düzenlemelerde sürdürülebilir kentleşmeden farklı olarak yeni bir kentsel yönetim yaklaşımı olarak kentsel dirençlilik teorisinin (Urban Resiliency Theory) öne çıkmasına sebep olmuştur. Ancak akademik ve politik alanda kentsel sürdürülebilirlik ile dirençlilik teorisi yaklaşımları arasındaki benzerlikler ya da farklılıkların doğru bir şekilde idrak edilmiyor olması teorik ve pratikte her iki yaklaşımdan beklenen itici ve yönlendirici gücün azalmasına sebep olmaktadır. Bu kapsamda çalışmanın amacı çeşitlilik ve belirsizlik ihtiva eden sürdürülebilir kentsel politikaların mevcut ve gelecekteki risk ve tehditlere karşı yetkinlik kapasitesini “kentsel dirençlilik” yaklaşımı çerçevesinde değerlendirmektir. Çalışmada kentsel sürdürülebilirlik politika ve uygulamaları ile dirençlilik kapsamında kabul edilen politika ve uygulamalarının niçin ve nasıl bütünleştirilebileceği tartışılmaktadır. Bu açıdan çalışmada kent yönetimde başvurulan iki temel yaklaşımdan kentsel sürdürülebilirlik (KS) ve Kentsel dirençlilik (KD) yaklaşımları kuramsal ve politik çıktıları bakımından tahlil edilerek her iki yaklaşımın birbirleri üzerindeki politik ve yönetsel iz düşümleri incelenmektedir.

Keywords

Kentsel Sürdürülebilirlik, Dirençlilik Teorisi, Sürdürülebilirlik Bilimi, Uyum, Kırılganlık

Supporting Institution

YOKTUR.

A New Window to Sustainable Urban Policies: Urban Resiliency

Abstract

The adoption and adaptation measures against risks and threats such as natural disasters, irregularity in climatic conditions, epidemics, terrorist incidents and financial difficulties in urban areas has become a necessity rather than a political choice as a result of socio-economic and political changes including rapid urbanization. In academic studies and international regulations, this has led to the emergence of the Urban Resiliency Theory as a new urban governance approach, unlike sustainable urbanization. However, the fact that the similarities or differences between urban sustainability and resilience theory approaches in the academic and political ground are not correctly asserted causes a decrease in the driving and directing power expected from both approaches in theory and practice. In this context, the aim of the study is to assess the effectiveness of sustainable urban policies, which contain diversity and uncertainty, against current and future risks and threats within scope of the “urban resiliency”. In the study, it is deliberated why and how urban sustainability policies and practices can be integrated with policies and practices accepted within the scope of urban resilience. In this context, this study scrutinizes urban sustainability (KS) and urban resilience (CA) approaches, which are two of the main approaches used in urban governance in terms of their theoretical and political outputs, and evaluates the political and governance projections of both approaches.

Keywords

Urban Sustainability, Resilience Theory, Sustainability Science, Adaptation, Vulnerability

References

• 1100 Resilient Cities (2021). Frequently Asked Questions about 100 Resilient Cites. (E.T.: 13.02. 2021), http://www.100 resilientcities.org/100rc-faq/.
• Adger, W. N., ve Jordan, A. (2009). Sustainability: exploring the processes and outcomes of governance. Governing Sustainability, 3–31. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511807756.003.
• Ahern, J. (2011). From Fail-Safe to Safe-to-Fail: Sustainability and Resilience in The New Urban World. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 341-343.
• Ahi, P., ve Searcy, C., (2013). A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52:329–341.
• Ali-Toudert, F., Ji, L., Fährmann, L. Czempik, S. (2020). Comprehensive assessment method for sustainable urban development (CAMSUD)—a new multi-criteria system for planning, evaluation and decision-making. Progress in Planning, 140, 100430.
• ARCADIS (2018). The Sustainable Cities Index 2018. (E.T.:17.03.2021), https://www.arcadis.com/campaigns/citizencentriccities/images/%7B1d5ae7e2-a348-4b6e-b1d7-6d94fa7d7567%7Dsustainable_cities_index_2018_arcadis.pdf.
• Bansal, P., ve DesJardine, M. R. (2014). Business sustainability: it is about time. Strategic Organization, 12(1), 70-78.
• Bocchini, P., Frangopol, D. M., Ummenhofer, T., ve Zinke, T. (2014). Resilience and sustainability of civil infrastructure: Toward a unified approach. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 20 (2), 04014004.
• Bolis, I., Morioka, S. N., ve Sznelwar, L. I. (2014). When sustainable development risks losing its meaning. Delimiting the concept with a comprehensive literature review and a conceptual model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 83, 7-20.
• Borda Rodriguez A. ve Vicari S.(2015). Coffee Cooperatives in Malawi: Building Resilience Through Innovation, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 86, 317– 338.
• Caldarice, O., Brunetta, G., ve Tollin, N. (2019). The challenge of urban resilience: Operationalization. In Urban Resilience for Risk and Adaptation Governance (1-6). Springer, Cham.
• Chelleri, L. (2012). From the “resilient city” to urban resilience. A review essay on understanding and integrating the resilience perspective for urban systems. Documents D'anàlisi Geogràfica, 58(2), 287-306.
• Ciegis, R., Ramanauskiene, J., ve Martinkus, B. (2009). The concept of sustainable development and its use for sustainability scenarios. Engineering Economics, 2(62), 28–37.
• Cohen, M. (2017). A systematic review of urban sustainability assessment literature. Sustainability, 9(11), 2048.
• Curren, R. (2014). Sustainability: what it is and how it works, defining sustainability ethics, in M. Boylen (Ed.), Environmental Ethics (331-393), John Wiley ve Sons.
• Delgado-Ramos, G. C., ve Guibrunet, L. (2017). Assessing the ecological dimension of urban resilience and sustainability. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 9(2), 151-169).
• Desouza, K. C., ve Flanery, T. H. (2013). Designing, planning, and managing resilient cities: A conceptual framework. Cities, 35, 89–99.
• Dickson, E., Baker, J. L., Hoornweg, D. ve Asmita, T. (2012). Urban risk assessments: an approach for understanding disaster and climate risk in cities, World Bank.
• Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Olsson, P., Gaffney, O., ... ve Folke, C. (2019). Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nature Sustainability, 2(4), 267-273.
• Erbay, E. R., ve Özden, M. (2018). Kentler sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedeflerinin gerçekleştirilmesine nasıl yardımcı olabilirler? Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 7(4), 255-268.
• Ersavaş Kavanoz, S. (2020). “Kentsel direnç” kavramı üzerine. Kent ve Çevre Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 5-24.
• Figueiredo, L., Honiden, T., ve Schumann, A. (2018). Indicators for resilient cities. OECD Regional Development Papers, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/paper/6f1f6065-en.
• Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253-267.
• Gibson, R. B. (2006). Beyond the pillars: sustainability assessment as a framework for effective integration of social, Economic and Ecological Considerations in Significant Decision-Making. Journal of Environ. Assess. Policy Management, 8(03), s.259–280.
• Godschalk, D. R. (2003). Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities. Natural Hazards Review, 4(3), 136–143.
• Gunderson, L., ve Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.
• Hamilton, W. A. H. (2009). Resilience and the city: The water sector. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Urban Design and Planning, 162(DP3), 109–121.
• Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 4(1), 1-23.
• Holling, C. S. (1996). Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. Engineering Within Ecological Constraints, 31(1996), 32.
• Local Governments for Sustainability-ICLEI (2018). Who Is ICLEI, http:// www.iclei.org/about/who-is-iclei.html. (E.T.:12.5.2021).
• International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources- IUCN (1980). World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/WCS-004.pdf. ( E.T.:13.6.2021).
• Karataş, A., ve Kılıç, S. (2017). Sürdürülebilir kentsel gelişme ve yeşil alanlar. Journal of Faculty of Political Science, 26(2): 53–78.
• Keeley, M., ve Benton-Short, L. (2018). Urban Sustainability in the US. Cities Take Action: Springer.
• Kemp, R., Parto, S., ve Gibson, R. B. (2005). Governance for sustainable development: moving from theory to practice. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1-2), 12-30.
• Kim, D., ve Lim, U. (2016). Urban resilience in climate change adaptation: A conceptual framework. Sustainability, 8(4), 1–17.
• Lall, Somik V. ve Deichmann, U. (2009). Density and Disasters: Economics of Urban Hazard Risk. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
• Lew, A. A., Ng, P.T., Ni, C. Nickel, Wu, T. E. (2016). Community sustainability and resilience: similarities, differences and indicators. Tour. Geogr. 18:18–27.
• Lu, P., ve Stead, D. (2013). Understanding the notion of resilience in spatial planning: A case study of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Cities, 35, 200–212.
• Marchese, D., Reynolds, E., Bates, M. E., Morgan, H., Clark, S. S., ve Linkov, I. (2018). Resilience and sustainability: Similarities and differences in environmental management applications. Science of the Total Environment, 613, 1275-1283.
• Meacham, B. J. (2016). Sustainability and resiliency objectives in performance building regulations. Build. Res. Inf. 44:474–489.
• Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., ve Stults, J. M. (2016). Defining Urban Resilience: A Review, Landscape and Urban Planning, 147. 38-49.
• Mehta, S., ve Yadav, K. K. (2016). Planning for a Smart City with a Human Face in Developing India. International Journal of Sustainable Land Use and Urban Planning, 3(2).
• Mejía-Dugand, S., Kanda, W., ve Hjelm, O. (2016). Analyzing international city networks for sustainability: A study of five major Swedish cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 61-69.
• Ostadtaghizadeh, A., Ardalan, A., Paton, D., Jabbari, H., ve Khankeh, H. R. (2015). Community disaster resilience: A systematic review on assessment models and tools. PLOS Currents, 7.
• Patel, R., ve Nosal, L. (2016). Defining the resilient city. New York: United Nations University Centre for Policy Research. https://cpr.unu.edu/research/projects/defining-the-resilient-city.html, (E.T.: 08.09.2021).
• Pickett, S. T., Cadenasso, M. L., ve McGrath, B. (Eds.). (2013). Resilience in ecology and urban design: Linking theory and practice for sustainable cities (Vol. 3). Springer Science ve Business Media.
• Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainable Development (1987‐2005) – an Oxymoron Comes of Age. Sustainable Development, 13(4), 221–227.
• Redman, C. (2014). Should sustainability and resilience be combined or remain distinct pursuits? Ecology and Society, 19(2).
• Ritchie, H., ve Roser, M. (2018). Urbanization. our world in data, https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization?fbclid=IwAR1g1kuapSWM-do3UxigkoqzCUAsqBTFdpLW_IXOCSMHTDdClS2c2RyUNnc, (E.T.:15.12.2020).
• Romero-Lankao, P., McPhearson, T., ve Davidson, D. J. (2017). The food-energy-water nexus and urban complexity. Nature Climate Change, 7(4), 233-235.
• Salas‐Zapata, W. A., ve Ortiz‐Muñoz, S. M. (2019). Analysis of meanings of the concept of sustainability. Sustainable Development, 27(1), 153-161.
• Salas‐Zapata, W., Rios‐Osorio, L., ve Cardona‐Arias, J. (2017). Methodological characteristics of sustainability science: A systematic review. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19(4), 1127–1140.
• Spaans, M., ve Waterhout, B. (2017). Building up resilience in cities worldwide – Rotterdam as participant in the 100 Resilient Cities Programme. Cities, 61, 109–116.
• STAR Communities (2018). Get Started, http:// www.starcommunities.org/get-started/.(E.T.:13.6. 2021).
• Thornbush, M., Golubchikov, O., ve Bouzarovski, S. (2013). Sustainable cities targeted by combined mitigation–adaptation efforts for future-proofing. Sustainable Cities and Society, 9, 1–9.
• Tuğaç, Ç. (2018). Uluslararası sürdürülebilir kent ölçütleri bağlamında Türkiye için bir değerlendirme. Kent Akademisi, 11(4), 703-740.
• Turcu, C. (2013). Re-thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning. Management. 56, 695–719.
• UN-HABİTAT (2017). Trends in Urban Resilience 2017, https://unhabitat.org/trends-in-urban-resilience-2017. (E.T.:23.09.2021).
• United Nations (2018). News. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. www. un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html. (E.T: 9.9. 2020).
• United Nation (2020). The Sustainable Development Goals Reports 2020, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2020.pdf.
• Wagner, I., ve Breil, P. (2013). The role of ecohydrology in creating more resilient cities. Ecohydrology ve Hydrobiology, 13(2), 113–134.
• Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, ve Kinzig A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2): 5.
• Wang, S. J., ve Moriarty, P. (2018). Big Data for Urban Sustainability. Springer International Publishing AG, E-book.
• Wardekker, J. A. (2018). Resilience principles as a tool for exploring options for urban resilience. Solutions, 9(1).
• Woods, D. D. (2006). Essential characteristics of resilience. In Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts (Edt. Hollnagel, E., Woods, D. D., & Leveson, N., 1, 21-33.
• World Commission on Environment and Development- WCED (1987). World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future, 17(1), 1-91.
• Xu, L. Marinova, D. Guo, X. (2014). Resilience thinking: A renewed system approach for sustainability science. Sustain. Sci. 10, 123–138.
• Yigitcanlar, T., Dur, F., ve Dizdaroglu, D. (2015). Towards prosperous sustainable cities: A multiscalar urban sustainability assessment approach. Habitat International, 45, 36-46.
• Yıldırım, K. (2019). Assessing capacity of urban climate governance: A Case from Turkish Metropolitan Municipalities. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, 14(2), 299-338.
• Yıldırım, K. (2021). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma yaklaşımına yeni bir boyut: etik. Abant Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21 (2), 379-403.
• Yıldırım, K., ve Önder, M. (2019). Collaborative role of metropolitan municipalities in local climate protection governance strategies: The case of Turkish metropolitan cities. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 21(02), 1950006.
• Zhang, X., ve Li, H. (2018). Urban resilience and urban sustainability: What we know and what do not know?. Cities, 72, 141-148.