Yeni kamusal alanların değerlendirilmesi: Maltepe Cumhuriyet Meydanı

Öz

Kamusal alanlar, yurttaşların eşit ve koşulsuz bir şekilde yararlandıkları, fiziksel olarak kullandıkları ve sosyal olarak kendilerini ifade edebildikleri, demokrasinin temsil edildiği mekanlardır. Kent içinde yer alan kamusal alanların nicelik ve nitelik özellikleri, kamusallığın tanımı içinde yer alan eşitlik-kamusal fayda ve temsiliyetin boyutlarının ve niceliğinin göstergesi konumundadır. Meydanlar, kentsel kamusal alanlar içinde hem fiziksel hem de sembolik anlamları nedeniyle pek çok disiplin için çok boyutlu okumalar yapmaya elverişli alanlardır. İstanbul gibi kentleşme hızı ile niteliği arasında sürekli bir gerilim bulunan bir metropolde meydanların işlevine ve niteliğine yakından bakmak, kentsel gündelik yaşamda kullanıcı faktörünü merkeze alan bir yaklaşımı zorunlu kılmaktadır. Bu perspektiften hareketle ele alınan bu çalışma, 2024 yılı Mart ayında kullanıma açılan ve bir yayalaştırma projesinin devamı niteliğinde olan Maltepe Cumhuriyet Meydanı’na yönelik bir araştırmanın bulgularını ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışmada, kullanıma yeni açılan bir meydana yönelik Kullanım Sonrası Değerlendirme Yöntemi ile 200 kullanıcıyla yapılan değerlendirme anketinin sonuçları tartışılmaktadır. Kullanım sonrası değerlendirme ile elde edilen kısa vadeli verilerin, planlama aşamasında kullanıcı katılımının önemine vurgu yaparak, gelecekte gerçekleştirilecek kamusal alan tasarımlarının planlama aşamasına katkı sunması hedeflenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kullanım Sonrası Değerlendirme
• Kamusal alan
• meydan
• Maltepe Cumhuriyet Meydanı

Etik Beyan

Çalışmanın tüm süreçlerinin araştırma ve yayın etiğine uygun olduğunu, etik kurallara ve bilimsel atıf gösterme ilkelerine uyduğumu beyan ederim.

Evaluation of new public spaces: Maltepe Cumhuriyet Square

Öz

Public spaces are places where citizens can benefit equally and unconditionally, use space freely, and express themselves socially; they are also spaces in which democratic values are expressed. The quantitative and qualitative characteristics of public spaces within a city indicate the dimensions of equality, public interest, and representation embedded in the definition of publicness. Squares hold particular significance among urban public spaces due to their physical and symbolic dimensions, making them fertile ground for multidisciplinary inquiry. In a metropolis such as Istanbul, where urbanization speed and quality are in constant tension, examining the function and quality of squares requires an approach centered on the user factor in daily urban life. From this perspective, this study presents findings from research on Maltepe Cumhuriyet Square, opened in March 2024 as the continuation of a pedestrianization project. Using the Post-Occupancy Evaluation Method, the study discusses the results of an evaluation survey conducted with 200 users of this newly opened square. By emphasizing the importance of user participation in the planning process, the short-term data obtained through post-occupancy evaluation aim to contribute to the planning of future public space designs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Public space
• Square
• Maltepe Cumhuriyet Square
• post occupancy evaluation

Etik Beyan

I declare that all processes of this study comply with research and publication ethics, and that I have adhered to ethical rules and scientific citation principles.

Kaynakça

1. Akhmouch, A., & Clavreul, D. (2016). Stakeholder engagement for inclusive water governance: “Practicing what we preach” with the OECD Water Governance Initiative. Water, 8(5), Article 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8050204
2. Blanchon, D. (2006). Marchés de l’eau et hiérarchies territoriales en Afrique de Sud. In J. Lombard, É. Mesclier, & S. Velut (Eds.), La mondialisation côté Sud: Acteurs et territoires (pp. 231–248). IRD Éditions. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.irdeditions.6681
3. Blanchon, D., & Casciarri, B. (Eds.). (2019). L’accès à l’eau en Afrique: Vulnérabilités, exclusions, résiliences et nouvelles solidarités. Presses universitaires de Paris Nanterre. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pupo.9340
4. Callon, M. (1986). The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle. In M. Callon, J. Law, & A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world (pp. 19–34). Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07408-2_2
5. Caponera, D. A. (1992). Principles of water law and administration: National and international. A. A. Balkema. Cole, A. (1999). Les réseaux et l’espace public: Leçons de France et de Grande-Bretagne. In É. Neveu & B. François (Eds.), Espaces publics mosaïques: Acteurs, arènes et rhétoriques des débats publics contemporains (pp. 249–266). Presses universitaires de Rennes. https://books.openedition.org/pur/24691
6. El Jihad, M.-D. (2001). L’eau de la montagne et le pouvoir étatique au Maroc: Entre le passé et le présent. Annales de Géographie, 110(622), 665–672. https://doi.org/10.3406/geo.2001.1708
7. Goldman, M. (2007). How “water for all!” policy became hegemonic: The power of the World Bank and its transnational policy networks. Geoforum, 38(5), 786–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.10.008
8. Global Water Partnership Cameroun. (2009). Plan d’action national de gestion intégrée des ressources en eau du Cameroun (PANGIRE). Global Water Partnership Cameroun.

9. Global Water Partnership Cameroun. (2019). Plan de mise en œuvre de la GIRE pour le Cameroun à l’horizon 2030. Global Water Partnership Cameroun. https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/activities/act-on-sdg6/sdg-map/stage-2-reports/cameroon_s2_report_2019.pdf
10. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
11. Hartwig, L. D., Jackson, S., Markham, F., & Osborne, N. (2022). Water colonialism and Indigenous water justice in south-eastern Australia. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 38(1), 30–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2020.1868980
12. Hugon, P. (2007). Vers une nouvelle forme de gouvernance de l’eau en Afrique et en Amérique latine. Revue Internationale et Stratégique, 66(2), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.3917/ris.066.0065
13. Hungerford, H., & Smiley, S. L. (2016). Comparing colonial water provision in British and French Africa. Journal of Historical Geography, 52, 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhg.2015.12.001
14. Kengne Fodouop, F. (2010). Cameroon: Africa in miniature. African Studies Review, 53(2), 89–105.
15. Kouam Kenmogne, G.-R., Mpakam, H. G., Ndonwy, S. A., Djomoudou Bopda, S. L., & Ekodeck, G. E. (2006). Gestion intégrée des ressources en eau et objectifs du Millénaire pour le développement en Afrique: Cas du Cameroun. VertigO – La revue électronique en sciences de l’environnement, 7(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4000/vertigo.2319
16. Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (Eds.). (2004). Gouverner par les instruments. Presses de Sciences Po.
17. Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments—From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance, 20(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00342.x
18. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.
19. Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2018). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 108–150). SAGE Publications.
20. Makkaoui, R., & Dubois, J.-L. (2010). Nouvelles formes de gouvernance dans le domaine de l’eau: Apports et limites de la coopération décentralisée dans les pays en développement. Développement Durable et Territoires, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.4000/developpementdurable.8413
21. Ministère de l’Eau et de l’Énergie. (2019). Politique nationale de l’eau du Cameroun. https://minee.cm/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/LA-Paulitique-Nationale-de-lEau-au-cameroun-30-nov-2019-SGPR.pdf
22. Miranda, G. M. (2017). Gestion intégrée des ressources en eau dans les pays fédéraux: Les cas suisse et brésilien [Doctoral dissertation, Université de Lausanne]. Géovisions. https://igd.unil.ch/www/geovisions/46/Geovisions_46_Gestion_integree_ressources_en_eau_Suisse_Bresil.pdf
23. Ngefor, G. (2011). Water governance challenges in Cameroon. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 27(3), 453–467.
24. Njikam Linjouom, A. R. (2021). Analyse comparative du cadre institutionnel et législatif de la gestion de la ressource en eau au Cameroun, dans le contexte des pays de la Communauté Économique des États de l’Afrique Centrale [Master’s thesis, Université de Liège]. MatheO. https://matheo.uliege.be/handle/2268.2/11752
25. OECD. (2015). OECD principles on water governance. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/water-governance/oecd-principles-on-water-governance-en.pdf
26. Onana, R. (2021, October 14). Africa water activists resist corporate privatisation as World Bank meets. CAPPA — Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa. https://cappaafrica.org/2021/10/14/africa-water-activists-resist-corporate-privatisation-as-world-bank-meets
27. Oumar, S.-B., & Tewari, D. D. (2010). The impact of the privatisation of water supply on households in the city of Douala in Cameroon. Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, 22(3), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/02601079X10002200305
28. Page, B. (2003). Communities as the agents of commodification: The Kumbo Water Authority in Northwest Cameroon. Geoforum, 34(4), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(03)00049-6
29. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1990). Policy networks: A British perspective. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(3), 293–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692890002003003
30. Rhodes, R. A. W. (2006). Policy network analysis. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 425–447). Oxford University Press.
31. Talkeu-Tounouga, C. (1999). La fonction symbolique de l’eau en Afrique noire: Une approche culturelle de l’eau. Présence Africaine, 161–162(3), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.3917/presa.161.0033
32. Tenkap, V. N. (2017). Politiques publiques de l’eau et gouvernance urbaine: Acteurs et enjeux de l’accès à l’eau potable des populations à Douala (Cameroun) [Doctoral dissertation, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne]. theses.fr. https://www.theses.fr/2017PA01H017
33. Weghmann, V., & Lobina, E. (2018). Water renationalisation in Cameroon 2018. Public Services International.
34. Woodhouse, P., & Muller, M. (2017). Water governance—An historical perspective on current debates. World Development, 92, 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.014
35. Zogo, M. (2023, January 26). Distribution: L’impact de l’eau non facturée sur les sociétés en débat à Yaoundé. EcoMatin. https://ecomatin.net/distribution-limpact-de-leau-non-facturee-sur-les-societes-en-debat-a-yaounde
36. Zvobgo, L., Johnston, P., Williams, P. A., Trisos, C. H., & Simpson, N. P. (2022). The role of indigenous knowledge and local knowledge in water sector adaptation to climate change in Africa: A structured assessment. Sustainability Science, 17(5), 2077–2092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01118-x