Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Kentsel Gelişme ve Dönüşüm İçin Arazi Düzenleme Modelleri: Tanzanya’da Alternatif Modellerin Uygulanabilirliği

Öz

Araştırmada sürdürülebilir kentsel arazi geliştirme süreçlerinde önemli zorluklarla karşılaşan gelişmekte olan ülkelere örnek teşkil eden Tanzanya’daki arazi düzenleme, kentsel geliştirme ve dönüşümde arazi yeniden düzenleme (AYD) tekniklerinin uygulanabilirliği birçok yönden ele alınmıştır. Araştırmanın amacı; İngilizce konuşmayan ülkelerde başarılı olan yenilikçi kentsel arazi geliştirme modellerinin potansiyelini ortaya koymak, kentsel arazi geliştirme yaklaşımlarını çeşitlendirmek, bu yaklaşımlardan yararlanma olanaklarını artırmak ve başarı oranlarını değerlendirmektir. Kuramsal incelemelere ek olarak yapılan saha çalışmasının hedeflerine ulaşabilmesi için, araştırmada hem anket (fiziksel ve çevrimiçi) verileri hem de uzman kişi ve kurumlarla yapılan derinlemesine görüşme sonuçlarının birlikte kullanıldığı karma bir yaklaşım benimsenmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre arazi geliştirme öncesinde kamulaştırma yoluyla arazi edinimi uygulaması, sürdürülebilir kentsel arazi geliştirme projelerinden etkilenen bireyler üzerindeki sosyo-ekonomik etkileri azaltmakta başarılı olamamıştır. Bu başarısızlığın nedenleri arasında tazminat ödenmesinin gerekliliği, katılımcılık ve şeffaflık eksiklikleri ile uygun düzenleyici çerçevenin bulunmaması yer almaktadır. Bu bağlamda, gelişmekte olan ülkelerde kapsamlı ve kapsayıcı arazi yeniden düzenleme yaklaşımlarının uygulanmasının, arazi geliştirme ve kentsel gelişimin sağlanması açısından zorunlu olduğu açıktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kentsel arazi geliştirme
• kamu hizmetleri
• kamulaştırma
• arazi yeniden düzenleme
• projeden etkilenen kişiler ve Tanzanya kentleri.

Land Readjustment Models for Urban Development and Transformation in Developing Countries: The Applicability of Alternative Models in Tanzania

Öz

In the study, the applicability of land readjustment techniques in land regulation, urban development, and transformation in Tanzania, which serves as an example for developing countries facing significant challenges in sustainable urban land development processes, is addressed from multiple perspectives. The aim of the research is to reveal the potential of innovative urban land development models that have been successful in non-English speaking countries, diversify urban land development approaches, increase the possibilities of benefiting from these approaches, and evaluate their success rates. In addition to theoretical examinations, a mixed approach was adopted in the research to achieve the goals of the field study, utilizing both survey (physical and online) data and the results of in-depth interviews conducted with expert individuals and institutions. According to the research results, acquiring land through expropriation prior to land development has not successful reduced the socio-economic impacts on individuals affected by sustainable urban land development projects. Reasons for this failure include the necessity of compensation payments, lack of participation and transparency, and the absence of an appropriate regulatory framework. In this context, it is clear that implementing of comprehensive and inclusive land readjustment approaches in developing countries is essential for ensuring land development and urban growth.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Urban land development
• public services
• expropriation
• land readjustment
• project-affected people and Tanzanian cities.

Kaynakça

1. Abd-Elkawy, A. A. M. (2018). Requirements of implementation limited land readjustment tools in developing informal deteriorated areas (Case study: Daier el Nahea area- Dokki District – Giza governorate). International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 7(1), 381-408.
2. Alterman, R. (2007). Much more than land assembly: Land readjustment for the supply of urban public services. In Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, 57-86.
3. Anonymous. (1999). The Land Act No. 4 of 1999. Government Printers, Tanzania, Dar es Salaam.
4. Anonymous. (2016a). Habitat III National Report Tanzania: Final Report.
5. Anonymous. (2016b). UN-Habitat, Remaking the Urban Mosaic-Participatory and Inclusive Land Readjustment. 10.12.2019 tarihinde www.iirr.org adresinden erişildi.
6. Anonymous. (2019). World Population Prospects 2019, Methodology of the United Nations Population Estimates and Projections. 10.04.2021 tarihinde https: //population.un.org/wpp/, adresinden erişildi.
7. Anonymous. (2022). Population and housing census 2022 Tanzania. 01.11.2022 tarihinde https://www.nbs.go.tz/index.php/en/sensa.nbs.go.tz. adresinden erişildi.
8. Bazame, R., (2022). Kentsel arazi arzı ve gayrimenkul piyasasının dinamiklerinin kentsel gelişim sürecine etkilerinin analizi: Burkina Faso’da Ouagadougou kenti örneği. (Doktora tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Gayrimenkul Geliştirme ve Yönetimi Anabilim Dalı, Ankara.

9. Bazame, R. ve Tanrıvermiş, H. (2020). Urban development and housing ıssues in urbanizing Burkina Faso. J.A.Joworski (Der.), Advances in sociology research içinde (s.57-89). Nova Science Publishers, USA.
10. Bourguignon, F., Ferreira, F.H. ve Walton, M. (2007). Equity, efficiency and inequality traps: A research agenda. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 5(2), 235-256.
11. Buitelaar, E. (2004). A transaction-cost analysis of the land development process. Urban Studies, 41(13), 2539–2553.
12. Enemark, S. (2001). Land administration systems: A major challenge for the surveying profession. In Proceedings of the XVIII Surveying and Mapping Educators Conference 2001: A spatial odyssey (pp. 1-12). Penn State University, USA.
13. Fainstein, S. (2009). Spatial justice and planning. Justice Spatiale/Spatial Justice, 1, 1-13.
14. Golland, A. (2003). Models for Land Assembly in the UK: A Comparative Analysis of Other European Approaches. RICS foundation.
15. Grover, R. (2014). Compulsory purchase. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 32(5), 518-529.
16. Harvey, D. (2009). Social justice and the city. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
17. Home, R. (2007). Land Readjustment as a Method of Development Land Assembly: A Comparative Overview. Town Planning Review, 78(4), 459-483.
18. Hong, Y. H., ve Brain, I. (2012). Land readjustment for urban development and post-disaste r reconstruction. Land Lines, 24(1), 2-9.
19. Hong, Y. H. (2007). Assembling land for urban development: İssues and opportunities. Y. H. Hong ve B. Needham (Der.), Analyzing land readjustment: economics, law and collective action. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy..
20. Hoyos, R. A. D. (2015). Testing land readjustment in Colombia: The equitable share between stakeholders (Master’s thesis). IHS Erasmus University of Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
21. Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J. ve Turner, L.A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112‐33.
22. Kironde, J. M. L. (2019). Community-Based Settlements Regularization: Lessons for Scaling up from Makongo-Juu Informal Settlement, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Current Urban Studies, 7, 170-192. https://doi.org/10.4236/cus.2019.72008.
23. Kironde, J. M. L. (2009). Improving land sector governance in Africa: The case of Tanzania (Paper prepared for the workshop on land governance in support of the MDGs: Responding to new challenges). Washington, DC.
24. Kombe, W. (2010a). Land acquisition for public use, emerging conflicts and their socio-political implications. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 2(1-2); 45-63. doi:10.1080/19463138.2010.520919.
25. Kombe, W. (2010b). Land conflicts in Dar es Salaam: Who gains? Who loses? Cities and Fragile States Working Paper No. 82.
26. Komu, F. (2014). Conceptualizing fair, full and prompt compensation – The Tanzanian context of sustaining livelihood in expropriation projects. Journal of Land Administration and Environmental Assessment, 2(2).
27. Kusiluka, M.M., Kongela, S., Kusiluka, M.A., Karimuribo, E.D. ve Kusiluka, L.J. (2011). The negative impact of land acquisition on indigenous communities’ livelihood and environment in Tanzania. Habitat International, 35(1), 66-73.
28. Li, L. H. ve Li, X. (2007). Land readjustment: An innovative urban experiment in China. Urban Studies, 44(1); 81–98. Louw, E. (2008). Land assembly for urban transformation—The case ofs-Hertogenbosch in The Netherlands. Land use policy, 25(1), 69-80.
29. Lugoe, F. (2008). Assessment of main urban land use ıssues in tanzania final report. The World Bank Urban Team, AFTU1 on Tanzania Local Government Support Project.
30. Makupa, E.R. ve Alananga, S. (2018). Compulsory Land Acquisition and Good Governance An Assessment of the Luguruni Satellite Town Project in Dar es Salaam Tanzania. African Jornal of Land Policy and Geospacial Science, 1(3), 18-31
31. Marcuse, P. (2009). From critical urban theory to the right to the city. City, 13(2-3), 185-197.
32. Monk, S., Whitehead, C., Burgess, G. ve Tang, C. (2013). International Review of Land Supply and Planning Systems. Report to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), London.
33. Mosha, L. (2012). Housing and land challenges in Tanzania. Prime Journal of Social Science (PJSS), 1(6), 113-120.
34. Msangi, D. (2011). Land acquisition for urban expansion: Process and impacts on livelihoods of peri-urban households (Licentiate thesis). Faculty of Natural Sciences and Agricultural Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
35. Namangaya, A. H. (2014). Urban spatial planning and local economic development: comparative assessment of practice in Tanzanian Cities. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 4(6), 20-31.
36. Nar, M. (2013). Kamu Ekonomisi: Ekonomik Etkinlik ve Vergileme. Seçkin Yayınları, Ankara, 40.
37. Ndjovu, C. E. (2003). Compulsory purchase in Tanzania: Bulldozing property rights (Master’s thesis). Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Infrastructure, Division of Real Estate Planning and Land Law, Stockholm.
38. Ndjovu, C. E. (2016). Understanding causes of dissatisfaction among compensated landowners in expropriation programs in Tanzania. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 5(1).
39. Needham, B. (2007). The search for greater efficiency: land readjustment in the Netherlands. Hong, Y.H., Needham, B. (Der.), Analyzing Land Readjustment: Economics, Law and Collective Action içinde (s.115–132). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, Mass.
40. Needham, B. ve Hong, Y.H. (2007). Analyzing land readjustment: Economics, law, and collective action. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
41. Needham, B., Segeren, A. ve Buitelaar, E. (2011). Institutions in theories of land markets: illustrated by the Dutch market for agricultural land. Urban Studies, 48(1), 161-176.
42. Shahab, S. ve Viallon, F.X. (2019). A transaction-cost analysis of Swiss land improvement syndicates. Town Planning Review, 90(5), 545-566.
43. Sharma, S., Giri, A., Haque, T. ve Tetteh, I. (2018). Land Acquisition in India: A Pareto and Kaldor-Hicks Perspective. Land, 7(2), 66.
44. Taber, K.S. (2018). The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education, Research in Science Education, 48, 1273-96.
45. Tan, R. ve Heerink, N. (2017). Public and Self-Organized Land Readjustment in Rural China − A Comparison. Journal of Rural Studies, 53, 45–57.
46. Tanrıvermiş, H. ve Aliefendioğlu, Y. (2019). Legal and Institutional Fundaments of Expropriation and Compensation Issues in Turkey (Chapter 7). In: Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Issues in Expropriation, Eds: F.Plimmer & W.McCluskey, Routledge Handbooks, New York, USA, ss.118-157.
47. Tanrıvermiş, H., Tanrıvermiş, Y., Bazame, R., Duman, İ ve Erciyes, A.H. (2020). Türkiye’de Değer Esaslı Arazi Düzenleme Yaklaşımlarına Olan İhtiyacın Uygulayıcılar ve Malikler Yönünden Değerlendirilmesi, II. Uluslararası Gayrimenkul Geliştirme ve Yönetimi Konferansı, 30 Ocak-3 Şubat 2020, Ankara, Türkiye.
48. Tenga, R.W. ve Mramba, S.J. (2015). Tanzania LGAF Synthesis Report World Bank. 31.12. 2019 tarihinde https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle /10986/28512 adresinden erişildi.
49. Terzioğlu, A. ve Tanrıvermiş, H. (2025). Türkiye Kentlerinde Değer Esaslı İmar Uygulaması Olanakları ve Başarı Koşulları, IV. Uluslararası Gayrimenkul Geliştirme ve Yönetimi Konferansı, 3-5 Şubat 2025, Ankara, Türkiye.
50. Tiwari, P., Stillman, G.B., Yoshino, N. (2020). Equitable Land Use for Asian Infrastructure. Asian Development Bank Institute.
51. Toulmin, C. (2009). Securing land and property rights in sub-Saharan Africa: the role of local institutions. Land use policy, 26(1), 10-19.
52. Türk, S. S. (2007). An Analysis on The Efficient Applicability of the Land Readjustment (LR) Method in Türkiye. Habitat International. 10.12.2019 tarihinde https://doi.org/ 10.10 16/j.habitatint.2006.04.001, adresinden erişildi.
53. Türk, S. S. (2008). An Examination for Efficient Applicability of The Land Readjustment Method at the International Context. Journal of Planning Literature, 22(3).
54. Türk, S. S. ve Korthals Altes, W. K. (2010). How suitable is LR for renewal of inner city areas? An analysis for Türkiye. Cities, 27(5); 326–336.
55. Türk, S. S. ve Korthals Altes, W. K. (2011). Potential application of land readjustment method in urban renewal: Analysis for Türkiye. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 137(1), 7-19.
56. Uisso, A. M. ve Tanrıvermiş, H. (2021). Driving factors and assessment of changes in the use of arable land in Tanzania. Land Use Policy, 104, 105359.
57. Uisso, A. M. (2023). Gelişmekte olan ülkelerde kentsel gelişme ve dönüşüm için arazi düzenleme modelleri: Tanzanya’da arazi düzenlemede alternatif modellerin uygulanabilirliğinin değerlendirilmesi. (Doktora tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Gayrimenkul Geliştirme ve Yönetimi Anabilim Dalı, Ankara.
58. Uisso, A. M., & Tanrıvermiş, H. (2024). Impediments to urban land development and transformation in Tanzania: Evaluating conventional approaches and proposing innovative solutions. Survey Review, 56(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396265.2024.2370599
59. Van der Krabben, E. ve Jacobs, H. M. (2013). Public land development as a strategic tool for redevelopment: Reflections on the Dutch experience. Land Use Policy, 30(1); 774-783.
60. Van Staveren, I. (2012). An evolutionary efficiency alternative to the notion of Pareto efficiency. Economic Thought.
61. Wallace, J. (2010). Land acquisition in developing economies. International Federation of Surveyors Article of the Month – February 2010. FIG Congress in Sydney, April 2010.
62. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. Free Press.
63. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. Free Press.