Akademik literatürde akıllı kent çalışmalarının söylemsel analizi

Öz

Bu makale, akıllı kent literatüründeki teknoloji merkezli hâkim söylemi eleştirel bir perspektifle analiz etmektedir. Karma yöntem (nicel bibliyometrik ve nitel içerik analizi) kullanılarak Web of Science (WoS) veri tabanındaki yayınlar incelenmiştir. Bulgular, akıllı kent araştırmalarının büyük ölçüde Mühendislik ve Bilgisayar Bilimleri etrafında şekillendiğini, Kent Çalışmaları oranının ise oldukça marjinal kaldığını (%6,9) göstermektedir. Araştırma, sosyal adalet, sosyal kapsayıcılık, hareketlilik, yaşanabilirlik ve vatandaş katılımı gibi kavramların dahi neoliberal rasyonaliteyle araçsallaştırılarak teknik bir optimizasyon sorununa indirgendiğini kanıtlamaktadır. Nitel analiz sonucunda; bütünlüklü planlama eksikliği, dijital erişim sorunları, neoliberal politikaların yarattığı eşitsizlikler ve kentsel adaletsizlik olmak üzere dört temel eleştirel tema öne çıkmaktadır. Çalışma, akıllı kentlerin tarafsız bir altyapı olmaktan ziyade Foucaultçu bir yönetimsellik ve sosyal kontrol mekanizması olarak işlediğini vurgular. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma yoksullar ve yaşlılar gibi dezavantajlı grupları dışlayan tekno-çözümcü yaklaşımlar yerine; kent hakkını, eşit erişimi ve katılımcı demokrasiyi merkeze alan, insan odaklı adil bir planlamanın zorunluluğuna dikkat çekilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Akıllı kentler
• sosyal adalet
• kent hakkı
• neoliberalizm
• dijital dışlanma

Etik Beyan

Bu makale, İzmir Kâtip Çelebi Üniversitesi Siyaset Bilimi ve Kamu Yönetimi Anabilim Dalı’nda Pınar EBE GÜZGÜ tarafından hazırlanan doktora tezinden türetilmiştir.

A discourse analysis of smart city studies in academic literature

Öz

This article critically analyzes the techno-centric discourse that dominates smart city literature. Using a mixed-methods approach (quantitative bibliometric and qualitative content analysis) on Web of Science (WoS) data, the study reveals a severe disciplinary imbalance: research is heavily concentrated in engineering and computer science, while urban studies remain strictly marginal (6.9%). The findings demonstrate that even when concepts like social justice, social inclusion, mobility, livability, and citizen participation are addressed, they are often co-opted by neoliberal rationality and reduced to technical optimization or market-driven metrics. Qualitative analysis highlights four main critical themes: the lack of holistic planning, digital access issues, social inequalities fueled by neoliberal policies, and urban injustice masked by technological transformation. The paper argues that smart cities function less as neutral infrastructures and more as Foucauldian mechanisms of governance and social control. Ultimately, it emphasized the urgent need to move away from profit-driven, techno-solutionist models that systemically exclude disadvantaged groups. Instead, the article advocates for a human-centric, equitable, and inclusive smart city planning model rooted in the “right to the city” and participatory democracy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Smart city
• social justice
• right to the city
• neoliberalism
• digital exclusion

Etik Beyan

This article is derived from the doctoral thesis prepared by Pınar EBE GÜZGÜ at the Department of Political Science and Public Administration at İzmir Kâtip Çelebi University.

Kaynakça

1. Akıncıoğlu, N. U. (2025). Akıllı şehirlerde önleyici güvenlik: Sensör ağları ve CCTV’nin etkinliği üzerine nitel bir değerlendirme. İdealkent, 17(50), 469–496. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.1766696
2. Anthopoulos, L. (2017). Smart utopia VS smart reality: Learning by experience from 10 smart city cases. Cities, 63, 128–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.10.005
3. Bakıcı, T., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2013). A smart city initiative: The case of Barcelona. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0084-9
4. Bolay, J. C. (2020). When inclusion means smart city: Urban planning against poverty. In K. Arai, R. Bhatia, & S. Kapoor (Eds.), Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC) 2019 (Vol. 1069, pp. 283–299). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32520-6_23
5. Caird, S. (2018). City approaches to smart city evaluation and reporting: Case studies in the United Kingdom. Urban Research & Practice, 11(2), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2017.1317828
6. Caragliu, A., & Del Bo, C. F. (2022). Smart cities and urban inequality. Regional Studies, 56(7), 1097–1112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2021.1984421
7. Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2011.60111
8. Cardullo, P., & Kitchin, R. (2019). Smart urbanism and smart citizenship: The neoliberal logic of “citizen-focused” smart cities in Europe. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 37(5), 813–830. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X18806508

9. Cavlak, N. (2022). Akıllı destinasyonların birlikte değer yaratımına etkisi. İdealkent, 13(36), 858–879. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.1037612
10. Chang, S., & Smith, M. K. (2023). Residents’ quality of life in smart cities: A systematic literature review. Land, 12(4), Article 876. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12040876
11. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
12. Cretu, L. G. (2012). Smart cities design using event-driven paradigm and semantic web. Informatica Economica, 16(4), 57–67.
13. Çetin, D., Kara, Y., & Henriques Correia, Z. C. (2020). Sürdürülebilir ve akıllı kentler: Marmara depremi. İdealkent, 11(31), 1933–1958. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.734993
14. Datta, A. (2015). New urban utopias of postcolonial India: ‘Entrepreneurial urbanization’ in Dholera smart city, Gujarat. Dialogues in Human Geography, 5(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820614565748
15. EasyPark. (2017). Smart city index 2017. EasyPark Group.
16. Eger, J. M. (2009). Smart growth, smart cities, and the crisis at the pump: A worldwide phenomenon. I-WAYS: Journal of E-Government Policy and Regulation, 32(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.3233/IWA-2009-0164
17. Erçetin, C., Durmaz, B., & Aksoy, Ç. (2022). Akıllı kent, erişilebilirlik ve mekânsal veri tabanı ilişkisi üzerine engeller analizi: Ankara örneği. İdealkent, 13(36), 487–518. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.1076597
18. European Commission. (2020). Smart cities. https://commission.europa.eu/eu-regional-and-urban-development/topics/cities-and-urban-development/city-initiatives/smart-cities_en
19. Foley, R. W., Nadjari, S., Eshirow, J., Adekunle, R., & Codjoe, P. (2022). Towards digital segregation? Problematizing the haves and have nots in the smart city. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 4, Article 706670. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2022.706670
20. Foucault, M. (2005). Özne ve iktidar (İ. Ergüden & O. Akınhay, Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
21. Foucault, M. (2019). Güvenlik, toprak, nüfus: Collège de France dersleri (1977–1978) (F. Taylan, Çev.). İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
22. Gebresselassie, M., & Sanchez, T. W. (2018). “Smart” tools for socially sustainable transport: A review of mobility apps. Urban Science, 2(2), Article 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci2020045
23. Ghosh, B., & Arora, S. (2022). Smart as (un)democratic? The making of a smart city imaginary in Kolkata, India. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 40(1), 318–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/23996544211027583
24. Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203452202
25. Grossi, G., & Pianezzi, D. (2017). Smart cities: Utopia or neoliberal ideology? Cities, 69, 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.07.012
26. Gürsoy Haksevenler, B. H. (2023). Akıllı şehirler ile ilgili indeksler. A. Akkoyunlu & M. E. Akıner (Ed.), Teoriden pratiğe akıllı şehirler (ss. 100–125) içinde. Kent Araştırmaları Enstitüsü.
27. Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial? City, 12(3), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810802479126
28. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
29. IESE Business School. (2025). Cities in motion index. https://www.iese.edu/media/research/pdfs/ST-0665-E
30. Institute for Urban Strategies. (2023). Global power city index 2023. The Mori Memorial Foundation.
31. Janurova, M., Chaloupkova, M., & Kunc, J. (2020). Smart city strategy and its implementation barriers: Czech experience. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 15(2), 5–21.
32. Kashem, S. B., & Gallo, D. (2023). Smart engagement in small cities: Exploring minority participation in planning. Urban Planning, 8(2), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v8i2.6607
33. Keskin, E. B. (2026). Akıllı kent, endişeli toplum: Kentin teknolojiye tesliminin muhtemel sonuçları üzerine. İdealkent, (51), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.1822521
34. Kitchin, R. (2015). Making sense of smart cities: Addressing present shortcomings. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsu027
35. Kitchin, R. (2018). Reframing, reimagining and remaking smart cities. In C. Coletta, L. Evans, L. Heaphy, & R. Kitchin (Eds.), Creating smart cities (pp. 219–230). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351182409-17
36. Kitchin, R., Cardullo, P., & Di Feliciantonio, C. (2018). Citizenship, justice and the right to the smart city [Preprint]. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/b8aq5
37. Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2011). Code/space: Software and everyday life. MIT Press.
38. Komninos, N. (2008). Intelligent cities and globalisation of innovation networks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203894491
39. Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on cities (E. Kofman & E. Lebas, Eds. & Trans.). Blackwell.
40. Lefebvre, H. (2014). Mekânın üretimi (I. Ergüden, Çev.). Sel Yayıncılık.
41. Lefebvre, H. (2016). Şehir hakkı (I. Ergüden, Çev.). Sel Yayıncılık.
42. Levenda, A. M., Keough, N., Rock, M., & Miller, B. (2020). Rethinking public participation in the smart city. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien, 64(3), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12601
43. Lombardi, P., Giordano, S., Farouh, H., & Yousef, W. (2012). Modelling the smart city performance. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2012.660325
44. Masucci, M., Pearsall, H., & Wiig, A. (2020). The smart city conundrum for social justice: Youth perspectives on digital technologies and urban transformations. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 110(2), 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2019.1617101
45. Mercer. (2023). Quality of living city ranking 2023.
46. Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. PublicAffairs.
47. Mouton, M., & Burns, R. (2021). (Digital) neo-colonialism in the smart city. Regional Studies, 55(12), 1890–1901. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2021.1915974
48. Nayir, F., Sarı, T., & Sarıdaş, G. (2024). Karma yöntem araştırma sorularının doğasını keşfetmek. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (60), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1384311
49. Nesta. (2015). European digital city index. European Digital Forum.
50. Öztaş Karlı, R. G. (2025). Türkiye’de akıllı kent uygulamalarının iyileştirilmesi: SWOT-SWARA metodolojisiyle bir değerlendirme. İdealkent, 17(47), 177–210. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.1554545
51. Passas, I. (2024). Bibliometric analysis: The main steps. Encyclopedia, 4(2), 1014–1025. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia4020065
52. Patrão, C., Moura, P., & Almeida, A. T. de. (2020). Review of smart city assessment tools. Smart Cities, 3(4), 1117–1132. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities3040055
53. Peker, F. (2023). Akıllı şehirlerde yaşayan laboratuvarlar. A. Akkoyuncu & M. E. Akıner (Ed.), Teoriden pratiğe akıllı şehirler (ss. 212–256) içinde. Kent Araştırmaları Enstitüsü.
54. Pinto Albuquerque, C. M. (2018). Cities really smart and inclusive: Possibilities and limits for social inclusion and participation. E-planning and collaboration: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 229–247) içinde. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5646-6
55. Saborido, R., & Alba, E. (2020). Software systems from smart city vendors. Cities, 101, Article 102690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102690
56. Schliwa, G. (2019). Smart cities by design? Interrogating design thinking for citizen participation. In P. Cardullo, C. Di Feliciantonio, & R. Kitchin (Eds.), The right to the smart city (pp. 151–164). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78769-139-120191011
57. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529682571
58. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Clarendon Press.
59. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Knopf.
60. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Harvard University Press.
61. Sharifi, A. (2019). Urban form resilience: A meso-scale analysis. Cities, 93, 238–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.010
62. Sharma, H., & Kanwal, N. (2023). Smart cities: A worldwide journey into intelligent urbanism and state-of-the-art technologies. Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 50(4), 328–355. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688223040081
63. Sheller, M. (2018). Mobility justice. Verso.
64. Söderström, O., Paasche, T., & Klauser, F. (2014). Smart cities as corporate storytelling. City, 18(3), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2014.906716
65. Strüver, A., Saltiel, R., Schlitz, N., Hohmann, B., Höflehner, T., & Grabher, B. (2021). A smart right to the city—Grounding corporate storytelling and questioning smart urbanism. Sustainability, 13(17), Article 9590. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179590
66. Tedeschi, M. (2024). Datafication and urban (in)justice: Towards a digital spatial justice. Geography Compass, 18(6), Article e12763. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12763
67. The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2023). The global liveability index 2023. The Economist Group.
68. Ünsal, Ö., & Avci, S. (2023). Akıllı şehir tartışmaları üzerine bir değerlendirme ve Türkiye. Mavi Atlas, 11(1), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.18795/gumusmaviatlas.1229850
69. Vanolo, A. (2016). Is there anybody out there? The place and role of citizens in tomorrow’s smart cities. Futures, 82, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.010
70. Vanolo, A. (2019). Playable urban citizenship: Social justice and the gamification of civic life. In P. Cardullo, C. Di Feliciantonio, & R. Kitchin (Eds.), The right to the smart city (pp. 57–69). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78769-139-120191004
71. Willis, K. S. (2019). Whose right to the smart city? In P. Cardullo, C. Di Feliciantonio, & R. Kitchin (Eds.), The right to the smart city (pp. 27–41). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78769-139-120191002
72. Woolrych, R., & Li, M. (2024). Exploring the role of smart cities in supporting ageing-in-place in Chongqing, China. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 43(2), 264–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.13301
73. Xu, Y., Li, W., Tai, J., & Zhang, C. (2022). A bibliometric-based analytical framework for the study of smart city lifeforms in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(22), Article 14762. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214762
74. Ziosi, M., Hewitt, B., Juneja, P., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2024). Smart cities: Reviewing the debate about their ethical implications. AI & Society, 39(3), 1185–1200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01558-0
75. Zook, M. (2017). Crowdsourcing the smart city: Using big geosocial media metrics in urban governance. Big Data & Society, 4(1), Article 2053951717694384. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717694384
76. Zuboff, S. (2019). Surveillance capitalism and the challenge of collective action. New Labor Forum, 28(1), 10–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1095796018819461