KENT PLANLAMADA E-KATILIM: İSTANBUL SENİN UYGULAMASI

Öz

Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerindeki gelişmelere paralel olarak planlama süreçlerinde geleneksel katılım giderek e-katılım uygulamalarına evrilmektedir. E-katılım ile geleneksel katılıma göre daha geniş̧ kitlelere ulaşılabilmekte, katılım elektronik ortamda kolay, hızlı ve pratik hale gelmektedir. E-katılım uygulamalarının etkili bir şekilde kullanılması için uygulamaların etkinliğinin ve kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi önemlidir. Bu bağlamda e-katılım uygulamaları katılım mekanizmaları, tasarımı, etkileşimi, genel yapısı, süreçlerin şeffaflığı, güvenliği gibi pek çok kriter ile değerlendirilebilir. Çalışmanın amacı, İstanbul Senin uygulamasını e-katılım açısından incelemek, bu uygulamanın vatandaşlar tarafından kullanımını irdelemek ve gelişimine yönelik öneriler sunmaktır. Çalışma İstanbul Senin uygulamasının e-katılım bağlamında olumlu ve olumsuz yönlerinin neler olduğu ve vatandaşlar tarafından nasıl kullanıldığı sorularına yanıt aramaktadır. Çalışma iki aşamalı olarak tasarlanmış̧ olup ilk aşamada İstanbul Senin uygulaması, e-katılım platformlarının değerlendirilmesine yönelik kriterler doğrultusunda analiz edilmiştir. İkinci aşamada ise bu uygulamanın kullanımının incelenmesi amacıyla anket çalışması gerçekleştirilmiştir. Örneklem grubu gönüllülük esasına, zaman ve maliyetler dikkate alınarak makul hata payı (%10) dahilinde 100 kişilik olarak belirlenmiştir. Analizler ve anket sonuçları birlikte değerlendirilerek mevcut durum ortaya konulmuş̧ ve uygulamanın geliştirilmesine yönelik önerilerde bulunulmuştur. Buna göre katılımcı süreçlerin önemi konusunda vatandasın bilgilendirilmesi ve farkındalığının artırılması, uygulamasının bilinirliğinin artırılması, tasarımının geliştirilmesi ve kullanım kolaylığının artırılması, etkileşim şeklinin iyileştirilmesi gibi konular İstanbul Senin uygulaması için ön plana çıkmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• E-katılım
• e-katılım değerlendirme kriterleri
• İstanbul Senin

E-PARTICIPATION IN URBAN PLANNING: ISTANBUL SENIN APPLICATION

Öz

In parallel with the developments in information and communication technologies, traditional participation in urban planning processes is gradually evolving into e- participation applications. For the effective use of e-participation applications, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness and quality of the applications in terms of participation mechanisms, design, interaction, structure, transparency, and security of processes. The aim of the study is to examine Istanbul Senin application in terms of e-participation, to investigate the use of this application by the citizens and to offer suggestions for its improvement.The study seeks answers to the questions of what the positive and negative aspects of the Istanbul Senin application are in the context of e-participation and how it is used by citizens. The study was designed in two stages. First, Istanbul Senin application was analyzed in line with the criteria for evaluation of e-participation platforms. Second, a survey was conducted to examine the use of this application. The sample group was determined on a voluntary basis and a sample of 100 participants was determined within a reasonable margin of error (10%), taking time and cost into account. Accordingly, issues such as informing and raising awareness of the citizens about the importance of participatory processes, increasing the familiarity of the application, improving the design and increasing the ease of use, improving the way of interaction have been emphasized for the Istanbul Senin application.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• E-participation
• e-participation evaluation criteria
• Istanbul Senin

Kaynakça

1. Adams, D. (2013). Volunteered geographic information: Potential implications for participatory planning. Planning Practice and Research, 28(4), 464–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.725549
2. Akçakaya, M. (2017). E-devlet anlayışı ve Türk kamu yönetiminde e-devlet uygulamaları. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (3), 8-31.
3. Al-Dwairi, R., & Jditawi, W. (2022). The Role of cloud computing on the governmental units performance and e-participation. International Journal of Advances in Soft Computing & Its Applications, 14 (3), 78-94. https://doi.org/10.15849/IJASCA.221128.06
4. Andersen K. V., Henriksen, H. Z., Secher, C., & Medaglia, R. (2007). Costs of e-participation: The management challenges. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1(1), 29-43. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/17506160710733689
5. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). The ladder of participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
6. Biegelbauer, P., & Hansen, J. (2011). Democratic theory and citizen participation: democracy models in the evaluation of public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy, 38(8), 589-597.
7. Bulut, Y., & Kurt, Z. (2020). Kentsel katılım: kentsel politikaların oluşumunda dezavantajlı grupların konumu. Journal of Politics Economy and Management, 3(1), 21-33.
8. Chang, E. C. C., & Chu, Y. (2006). Corruption and trust: Exceptionalism in Asian democracies. Journal of Politics, 68(2), 259– 71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00404.x

9. Chen, X., & Hartt, M. (2021). Planning for an older and digital future: Opportunities and challenges of age-friendly e-participation in China. Planning Theory & Practice, 22(2), 191- 210. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.1903536
10. Çılgın, K., & Yirmibeşoğlu, F. (2019). Yerel demokrasi arayışında mahalle yönetimi. Planlama, 29(2),102–114.
11. Cohen, J., & Uphoff, N. (1980). Participation’s place in rural development: Seeking clarity through specificity. World Development, 8, 13–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(80)90011-X
12. Dahl, R. A. (1993). Demokrasi ve eleştirileri. (L. Köker, Çev.) Ankara: Yetkin.
13. Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31, 331-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366508978187
14. Delibaş, K., & Akgül, A. E. (2010). Dünyada ve Türkiye’de e-devlet uygulamaları: Türkiye'de e-demokrasi ve e-katılım potansiyellerinin harekete geçirilmesi. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 100-144. https://doi.org/ 10.18490/SAD.64008
15. Demirhan, K., & Öktem, M. K. (2011). Electronic participation in the policy making process: A case study. International Journal of eBusiness and eGovernment Studies, 3(1), 59-78.
16. Desouza, K. C., & Bhagwatwar, A. (2014). Technology-enabled participatory platforms for civic engagement: The case of U.S. cities. Journal of Urban Technology, 21(4), 25- 50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2014.954898
17. Diamantopoulou, V., Androutsopoulou, A., Gritzalis, S., & Charalabidis, Y. (2018, May). An assessment of privacy preservation in crowdsourcing approaches: Towards GDPR compliance. In 2018 12th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS) (pp. 1-9). IEEE.
18. Diamantopoulou, V., Androutsopoulou, A., Gritzalis, S., & Charalabidis, Y. (2020). Preserving digital privacy in e-participation environments: Towards GDPR compliance. Information, 11(2), 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11020117
19. Edelmann, N., Hoechtl, J., Parycek, P. (2009). E-participation for adolescent citizens (in Austria). A. Macintosh, E. Tambouris (Eds.) In Electronic participation. ePart 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5694. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
20. Eraydın, A. (2020). Planlamada yeni eğilimler. S. S. Özdemir, Ö. B. Özdemir Sarı ve N. Uzun (Der.), Kent planlama içinde (ss.567-589). Ankara: İmge Kitapevi.
21. Erdoğan, O. (2019). Yerel yönetimlerde katılımcı mekanizmalar ve Trabzon Büyükşehir Belediyesi örneği. Akademik İzdüşüm Dergisi, 4(2), 295-310.
22. Ersoy, M. (2012). Planlama kuramına giriş. M. Ersoy (Der.), Kentsel planlama kuramları içinde (ss. 9-34). Ankara: İmge Kitapevi.
23. Ertiö, T. (2015). Participatory apps for urban planning – space for improvement. Planning Practice and Research, 30(3), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1052942
24. Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
25. Glass, J. J. (1979). Citizen participation in planning: The relationship between objectives and techniques. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(2), 180-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367908976956
26. Gündoğdu, H. G. (2015). Yönetime katılmada bilgi iletişim teknolojilerinin kullanılması: E- katılım. M. A,
27. Çukurçayır, H. T. Eroğlu, H. Sağır ve M. Navruz (Der.), Kamu yönetiminde değişimin yönü ve etkileri 13. Kamu yönetimi kongresi içinde (ss.1915-1927). Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi.
28. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Hanzl, M. (2007). Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: A review of experiments and potentials. Design Studies, 28(3), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.003
30. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan. İstanbul Kent Konseyi. (2022). 2022 yılı Bütçe Senin izleme ve değerlendirme raporu. https://istanbulkentkonseyi.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/KB-izleme-degerlendirme-raporu.pdf
31. Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. (2021). Istanbul Senin. Retrieved from https://istanbulsenin.istanbul, on June 10, 2023.
32. Kamacı, E. (2014). A novel discussion on urban planning practice: Citizen participation. ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning, 2(1), 1–19.
33. Kim, S. (2010). Public trust in government in Japan and South Korea: Does the rise of critical citizens matter? Public Administration Review, 70(5), 801– 10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02207.x
34. Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2012). E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819-828. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02593.x
35. Kleinhans, R., Van Ham, M., & Evans-Cowley, J. (2015). Using social media and mobile technologies to foster engagement and self-organization in participatory urban planning and neighbourhood governance. Planning Practice & Research, 30(3), 237-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1051320
36. Koçak, B., & Bektaş, M. (2019). Ulusal ve uluslararası hukuk sisteminde kentli hakları ve katılım. Kent Akademisi, 12(1), 104-117.
37. Kubicek, H., & Aichholzer, G. (2016). Closing the evaluation gap in e-participation research and practice. Evaluating e-participation: Frameworks, practice, evidence, 11-45.
38. Kweit, M. G., & Kweit, R. W. (2004). Citizen participation and citizen evaluation in disaster recovery. American Review of Public Administration, 34(4), 354– 73. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0275074004268573
39. Macintosh, A. (2004, January). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In 37th Annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the (pp. 10-pp). IEEE.
40. Medaglia, R. (2012). eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006-2011). Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 346–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.02.010
41. Mossberger, K., Wu, Y., & Crawford, J. (2013). Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media and interactivity in major U.S. cities. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.016
42. Nielsen, R. Ø., Hennen, L., Korthagen, I., Aichholzer, G., & Lindner, R. (2020). Options for Improving e-Participation at the EU Level. European E-democracy in Practice, 329-359.
43. OECD. (2001). Citizens as partners: Information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. Paris: OECD Publishing.
44. OECD. (2003). Using information and communication technologies to enhance citizen engagement in the policy process in promises and problems of e-democracy: Challenges of online citizen engagement. Paris: OECD Publications Service.
45. Purcell, M. (2009). Resisting neoliberalization: Communicative planning or counter- hegemonic movements? Planning Theory, 8, 140-165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209102232
46. Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. American Review of Public Administration, 34(4), 315–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074004269288
47. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 25(1), 3–29. doi:10.1177/016224390002500101.
48. Shipley, R., & Utz, S. (2012). Making it count: A review of the value and techniques for public consultation. Journal of Planning Literature, 27(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412211413133
49. Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.x
50. Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.
51. Thiel, S. K. (2016). A Review of introducing game elements to e-participation. In Conference for e-democracy and open government (CeDEM), Krems, Austria, 2016 (pp. 3-9).
52. Uçkan, Ö. (2003). E-devlet, e-demokrasi ve Türkiye, kamu yönetiminin yeniden yapılanması için strateji ve politikaları. İstanbul: Literatür Yayıncılık.
53. United Nations. (2008). United Nations e-government survey 2008. New York: United Nations.
54. United Nations. (2010). United Nations e-government survey 2010. New York: United Nations.
55. United Nations. (2022). E-participation index. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/Overview/E-Participation-Index
56. United Nations. (2023). E-government knowledgebase. Retrieved from https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/Overview/E-Participation- Index, on June 15, 2023.
57. World Bank. (1990). The World Bank participation sourcebook. Washington: World Bank.
58. Zheng, Y., & Schachter, H. L. (2017). Explaining citizens’ e-participation use: The role of perceived advantages. Public Organiz Rev, 17, 409–428.
59. Zheng, Y., Schachter, H. L., & Holzer, M. (2014). The impact of government form on e- participation: A study of New Jersey municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 653-659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.06.004
60. Zobel, R. (2005). E-Government: European Commission policies and activities. E. Di Maria, & S. Micelli (Eds.) In On line citizenship. Boston, MA: Springer.