Katılımcı Planlama İçin Yöntem Yaklaşımı: Sakarya Mahallesi Parkı Örneği, Denizli-Türkiye

Öz

Günümüz toplumları yaşam alanlarının değerinin bilinci ile planlanmasında doğrudan etkin olmak istemektedirler. Bu nedenle, yerel otoriteler de gelişim sürecinin planlama ve değerlendirme safhalarına yerel toplulukları dahil ederek konunun karmaşıklığı konusunda farkındalığı arttırmalıdırlar. Bu noktada halkın görüşü doğrultusunda hizmet verme hedefine sahip katılım modelini belirlenen alanda uygulanması deneyimi bu çalışmada ele alınmıştır. Bu kapsamda karar verme mekanizmalarında yer almayan halktan insanların bir şeyler yapmak için ''harekete geçmeleri'' kavramından yola çıkarak Denizli Sarayköy Sakarya mahallesi kamusal alanının canlandırılması konusunda katılım modeli olan GİP (gerçek için planlama) yönteminin uyarlanması ile halkın harekete geçirilmesi ve yerel yönetime katkıda bulunması hedeflenmiştir. ''Sarayköy-Su Deposu Parkı'' örneği üzerinden mevcut planlama süreçlerine halkın katılımın sağlanması, kısa, orta ve uzun vadede daha etkin katılımın sağlanması için kullanılabilecek araçlar ve kriterlerin uygulamalı olarak aktarılması üzerinde odaklanmıştır. ''Gerçek için planlama yöntemi'' Sarayköy ilçesi örneğinde yerel halkın karar alma–verme süreçlerine dâhil edilmesi ve ortak gelecek için paylaşılan vizyonu sahiplenme imkânı sunması bakımından önemli görülmelidir. Bu araştırmanın, yerel yönetimler ile yerel halk arasında işbirliği ve diyalog kurulmasına dayanan planlama yaklaşımı bakımından örnek alan olarak uygulama düzeyinde katkı koyacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• katılımcı planlama,Katılımcı model,işbirliği,diyalog,yerel yönetim

A Method Approach For Participatory Planning: A Case Study For Sakarya District Park, Denizli-Turkey

Öz

Today's societies want to be directly active in planning of the living spaces with consciousness of their value. For this reason, local authorities should also raise awareness of the complexity of the issue by including the local communities in the planning and the evaluation phases of the development process. At this point, the experience of applying the participation model, which has the goal of giving service in line with the opinion of the community, in the designated area is discussed in this study. In this context, it has been aimed to mobilize the people and contribute to the local governance by the adaptation of the PFR (planning for real) participation model in the matter of vitalization of the public space of Denizli Sarayköy Sakarya neighborhood based on the concept of "taking the action" for the people from community, who are not taking part in decision-making mechanisms, to do something. Through the example of "Sarayköy-Reservoir Park", ensuring public participation in existing planning processes, practical transfer of tools and criteria that can be used to achieve more effective participation in short, medium and long term were focused. "The method of planning for real" should be considered significant in terms of including local people in decision-making processes in the case of Sakarya Neighborhood in Sarayköy district and offering a shared vision for the common future. It is thought that this research will contribute at the application level as a sample area in terms of planning approach based on collaboration and dialogue between local governments and local people.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• participatory planning,Participatory model,collaboration,dialog,local government

Kaynakça

1. Anonim, 2011. İnsanlar ve katılım: yurttaşlar karar almanın merkezine nasıl yerleştirilir. http://www.sp.gov.tr/upload/Sayfa/47/files/Insanlarvekatilimweb.pdf. (Erişim tarihi: 02.01.2018)
2. Creighton JL, 2005. The public participation handbook: Making better decisions through citizen involvement. John Wiley & Sons.
3. Forester J, 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Guynn DE, Landry MK, 1997. A case study of citizen participation as a success model for innovative solutions for natural resource problems. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(2): 392–398.
5. Healey P, 1998. Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. The Town Planning Review 69(1):1–21.
6. Hillier J, Gunder M, 2005. Not over your dead bodies! A Lacanian interpretation of urban planning discourse and practice. Environment and Planning A 37(6): 1049–1066.
7. Hjortsø CN, 2004. Enhancing public participation in natural resource management using Soft OR – an application of strategic option development and analysis in tactical forest planning. European Journal of Operational Research 152(3): 667–683.
8. Huang S-CL, 2010. The impact of public participation on the effectiveness of, and users’ attachment to, urban neighborhood parks. Landscape Research 35(5): 551–562.

9. Innes JE, Booher DE, 2004. Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century, Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4): 419-436.
10. Ismail WAW, Said I, 2015. Integrating the community in urban design and planning of public spaces: a review in Malaysian cities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168: 357-364.
11. Janse G, Konijnendijk CC, 2007. Communication between science, policy and citizens in public participation in urban forestry – experiences from the neighbourwoods project. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 6(1): 23–40.
12. Kaplan R, 1980. Citizen participation in the design and evaluation of a park. Environment and Behavior 12(4): 494–507.
13. Kobori H, Primack RB, 2003. Participatory conservation approaches for Satoyama, the traditional forest and agricultural landscape of Japan. Ambio A Journal of the Human Environment 32(4): 307–311.
14. Loures L, Crawford P, 2008. Democracy in progress: Using public participation in post-industrial landscape (re)-development. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development 4(9): 794-803.
15. Lindsey G, Knaap G, 1999. Willingness to pay for urban greenway projects. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(3): 297–313.
16. Malek NA, Mariapan M, Ab Rahman NIA, 2015. Community participation in quality assessment for green open spaces in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168: 219-228.
17. Mohamed Anuar MIN, Saruwono M, 2013. Obstacles of public participation in the design process of public parks. Journal of Asian Behavioural Studies, 3(8): 89-99.
18. Palerm JR, 1999. Public participation in environmental decision making: examining the Aarhus convention. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 1(2): 229–244.
19. Rowe G, Frewer LJ, 2000. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values 25(1): 3–29.
20. Sanesi G, Chiarello F, 2006. Residents and urban green spaces: The case of Bari. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 4(3–4): 125-134.
21. Shan XZ, 2012. Attitude and willingness toward participation in decision-making of urban green spaces in China. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 11(2): 211-217.
22. Shuib KB, Hashim H, Nasir NAM, 2015. Community participation strategies in planning for urban parks. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168: 311-320.
23. Sipilä M, Tyrväinen L, 2005. Evaluation of collaborative urban forest planning in Helsinki, Finland. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 4(1): 1–12.
24. Thomas JC, 1995. Public Participation in Public Decisions: New Skills and Strategies for Public Managers. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
25. Turgut S, Seçilmişler T, 2017. Katılımcı Planlama Deneyimi: Mersin İl Çevre Düzeni Planı Örneği. Megaron 12(2): 292-303.
26. Vandenbussche L, Edelenbos J, Eshuis J, 2015. Pathways of stakeholders’ relations and frames in collaborative planning practices: A framework to analyse relating and framing dynamics. Planning Theory, 16(3): 233-254.
27. Van Herzele, A, 2004. Local knowledge in action. Valuing nonprofessional reasoning in the planning process. Journal of Planning Education and Research 24: 197–212.
28. Ward Thompson C, 2002. Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 60: 59–72.