Semt Yaşamı Odağında Bütüncül Yerel Yönetim Yaklaşımı

Year 2024, Volume: 17 Issue: 5, 1939 - 1951, 17.09.2024

Oylum Işık , Selim Ökem

https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.1494148

Abstract

Bu çalışma, bütüncül yerel yönetim yaklaşımlarının etkilerini, avantajlarını ve bu yaklaşımların yerel yönetim performansına nasıl katkıda bulunduğunu ele alır. Araştırma, bütüncül yaklaşımların kent yönetiminde nasıl bir dönüşüm yaratabileceğini ve yerel yönetimlerin karşılaştığı zorluklara daha etkili çözümler sunma potansiyelini incelemektedir. Literatür incelemesi, bütüncül yaklaşımların yerel yönetimlerde vatandaş katılımını ve yönetim süreçlerinin şeffaflığını nasıl artırdığını göstermiştir.
Yerel yönetimlerde bütüncül yaklaşımların kullanımı, teknolojik yenilikler ve katılımcı politikaların geliştirilmesi süreçlerini kapsar. Bu yaklaşımlar, yönetim kapasitesini artırarak, daha sürdürülebilir ve duyarlı hizmet sunumunu destekler. Araştırma, bütüncül yönetim stratejilerinin, kapsayıcı ve etkin hizmetler yoluyla toplumların karşılaştığı çeşitli sosyoekonomik problemlere karşı daha iyi mücadele edebilmesini sağladığını ortaya koyar. Alana özgü yapılan çalışmalar, bu tür stratejilerin kentsel altyapı ve hizmetlerin iyileştirilmesinde önemli rol oynadığını göstermektedir.
Yapılan araştırmada, yerel yönetimlerin bütüncül yaklaşımları daha etkin bir şekilde nasıl uygulayabileceği üzerine stratejik öneriler sunulmaktadır. Bu öneriler arasında, teknoloji entegrasyonunun artırılması, vatandaşların politika yapım süreçlerine daha fazla dâhil edilmesi ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedeflerine yönelik politikaların güçlendirilmesi yer almaktadır. Bu stratejiler, yerel yönetimlerin daha etkili, verimli ve duyarlı olmasını sağlarken, kent yaşamının kalitesini arttırmayı hedeflemektedir.

Keywords

Bütüncül Yönetim, Yerel Yönetim Performansı ve Sürdürülebilir Kent Yönetimi, Mimari Tasarım.

Supporting Institution

Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bİlimleri Enstitüsü Mimarlık Anabilim Dalı Mimari Tasarım Programı YÜksek Lİsans tezinden üretilmiştir.

Holistic Local Government Approach Focusing on Neighbourhood Life

Abstract

This study analyses the effects and advantages of holistic local government approaches and how these approaches contribute to local government performance. The research examines how holistic approaches can transform urban governance and their potential to provide more effective solutions to the challenges faced by local governments. The literature review shows how holistic approaches have increased citizen participation and transparency of governance processes in local governments, building on studies such as Ansell and Gash and Aguilera et al.
The use of holistic approaches in local governments encompasses technological innovations and participatory policy-making processes. These approaches increase management capacity and support more sustainable and responsive service delivery. The research shows that holistic management strategies enable communities to better address the various socio-economic challenges they face through inclusive and effective services. Studies by Giffinger et al. show how such strategies play an important role in improving urban infrastructure and services.
Our study provides strategic recommendations on how local governments can implement holistic approaches more effectively. These recommendations include increasing technology integration, involving citizens more in policy-making processes, and strengthening policies towards sustainable development goals. These strategies will enable local governments to be more effective, efficient and responsive and thus improve the quality of urban life.

Keywords

: Holistic Management, Local Government Performance, Sustainable Urban Management

References

• Aguilar, J., Díaz, F., Altamiranda, J., Cordero, J., Chavez, D., & Gutierrez, J. (2021). Metropolis: Emergence in a serious game to enhance the participation in smart city urban planning. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12, 1594–1617.
• Aguilera, U., Peña, O., Belmonte, O., & López-de-Ipiña, D. (2017). Citizen-centric data services for smarter cities. Future Generation Computer Systems, 76, 234–247.
• Akterujjaman, S. M., Mulder, R., & Kievit, H. (2022). The influence of strategic orientation on co-creation in smart city projects: Enjoy the benefits of collaboration. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(9), 1597–1605.
• Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22, 3–21.
• Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543–571.
• Anthony, B. (2021). Information flow analysis of a knowledge mapping-based system for university alumni collaboration: A practical approach. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12(1), 756–787.
• Aversano, P., Raju, A., Mechant, P., & Ballon, P. (2013, May 23–25). Reuse potential assessment framework for gamification-based smart city pilots. In D. Charitos, I. Theona, D. Dragona, M. Meimaris, & C. Rizopoulos (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Biennial Conference Hybrid City, Subtle Revolutions (pp. 17–23).
• Baccarne, B., Mechant, P., & Schuurman, D. (2014). Empowered cities? An analysis of the structure and generated value of the smart city Ghent. In R. P. Dameri & C. Rosenthal-Sabroux (Eds.), Smart city—How to create public and economic value with high technology in urban space (pp. 157–182). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer
• Ballas, D. (2013). What makes a ‘Happy city’? Cities, 32, S39–S50.
• Bencardino, M., & Greco, I. (2014, June 4–6). Smart communities. Social innovation at the services of smart cities. Paper presented at Eighth international conference INPUTSmart city—Planning for energy, transportation and sustainability of the urban system, Naples, Italy.
• Benington, J., & Moore, M. (Ed.). (2011). Public value: Theory and practice. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Berntzen, L., & Johannessen, M. R. (2016). The role of citizen participation in municipal smart city projects: Lessons learned from Norway. In Smarter as the new urban agenda (pp. 299–314). Springer.
• Bugg-Levine, A., & Emerson, J. (2011). Impact investing. Transforming how we make money while making a difference. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
• Capra, C. F. (2016). The Smart City and its citizens: Governance and citizen participation in Amsterdam Smart City. International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), 5(1), 20–38.
• Carayannis, E. G., Campbell, D. F., & Grigoroudis, E. (2022). Helix trilogy: The triple, quadruple, and quintuple innovation helices from a theory, policy, and practice set of perspectives. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(3), 2272–2301.
• Cosgrave, E., Tryfonas, T., & Crick, T. (2014, August 24–27). The smart city from a public value perspective. In ICT for sustainability 2014, ICT4S 2014 (pp. 369–377). Stockholm, Sweden: Atlantis Press.
• Feeney, M. K., & Welch, E. W. (2012). Electronic participation technologies and perceived outcomes for local government managers. Public Management Review, 14, 815–883.
• Fredericks, J. (2020). From smart city to smart engagement: Exploring digital and physical interactions for playful city-making. In A. Nijholt (Ed.), Making Smart Cities More Playable. Gaming Media and Social Effects. Springer.
• Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., Kalasek, R., Pichler-Milanovic´, N., & Meijers, E. (2007). Smart cities: Ranking of European medium-sized cities. Vienna, Austria: Centre of Regional Science (SRF), Vienna University of Technology.
• Granier, B., & Kudo, H. (2016). How are citizens involved in smart cities? Analysing citizen participation in Japanese``Smart Communities. Information Polity, 21(1), 61–76.
• Hills, D., & Sullivan, F. (2006). Measuring public value 2: Practical approaches. London, England: The Work Foundation.
• Hoon Lee, J. H., Phaal, R., & Lee, S.-H. (2013). An integrated service-device-technology roadmap for smart city development. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 80, 286–306.
• Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2001). The strategy-focused organisation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Khan, Z., & Kiani, S. L. (2012). A cloud-based architecture for citizen services in smart cities. In 2012 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (pp. 315–320).
• Kloppers, J. (2016). Citizen engagement in Cape Town's transition towards a smart city. In 2016 IST-Africa Week Conference (pp. 1–13).
• Komninos, N. (2011). Intelligent cities: Variable geometries of spatial intelligence. Intelligent Buildings International, 3, 172–188.
• Leino, H., & Puumala, E. (2021). What can co-creation do for the citizens? Applying co-creation for the promotion of participation in cities. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 39(4), 781–799.
• Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 446–454.
• Lombardi, P., Giordano, S., Farouh, H., & Wael, Y. (2011, June 15–18). An analytic network model for Smart cities. Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Sorrento, IT.
• Melendreras-Ruiz, R., & García-Collado, Á. J. (2013). MOBISEC: An European experience directed towards improving cities through citizen participation. In 2013 International Conference on New Concepts in Smart Cities: Fostering Public and Private Alliances (SmartMILE) (pp. 1–5).
• Mellouli, S., Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Zhang, J. (2014). Smart government, citizen participation and open data. Information Polity, 19(1, 2), 1–4.
• Moore, M. H. (2013). Recognizing public value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mosannenzadeh, F., & Vettoriato, D. (2014). Defining smart city. A conceptual framework based on keyword analysis. TeMa—Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 6, 683–694.
• Partanen, J., & Möller, K. (2012). How to build a strategic network: A practitioner-oriented process model for the ICT sector. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(3), 481–494.
• Savoldelli, A., Codagnone, C., & Misuraca, G. (2014). Understanding the eGovernment Paradox: Learning from literature and practice on barriers to adoption. Government Information Quarterly, 31, 563–571.
• Savoldelli, A., Misuraca, G., & Codagnone, C. (2014). Measuring the public value of e Government: The eGEP2.0 model. Electronic Journal of eGovernment, 11, 373–88.
• Shapiro, J. M. (2006). Smart cities: Quality of life, productivity, and the growth effects of human capital. Review of Economics & Statistics, 88, 324–335.
• Simonofski, A., Asensio, E. S., De Smedt, J., & Snoeck, M. (2017). Citizen participation in smart cities: Evaluation framework proposal. In 2017 IEEE 19th conference on business informatics (CBI) (Vol. 1, pp. 227–236).
• Welch, E. W. (2012). The relationship between transparent and participative government: A study of local governments in the United States. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78, 93–115.
• Yeh, H. (2017). The effects of successful ICT-based smart city services: From citizens' perspectives. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3), 556–565.