Enformel Kamusal Alanlarda Katılımcı Mekânsal Üretim: Jabi Göl Kıyısı Parkı, Abuja Örneği

Öz

Sömürgecilik sonrası dönemde Afrika kentlerinin çoğunda kamusal mekânlar büyük ölçüde gündelik enformel pratikler ile şekillendirilmektedir. Ancak kullanıcıların bu tür mekânları nasıl algıladığı, sahiplendiği ve yeniden düzenlediğine ilişkin çalışmalar sınırlıdır. Özellikle Batılı planlama geleneğine sahip ve hızla büyümekte olan Abuja gibi kentlerde enformel mekânsal üretim sürecinin incelenmesi değerlidir. Bu çalışma, Abuja kentinde yer alan ve enformel pratiklerin hâkim olduğu Jabi Gölü Kıyı Parkı örneğine odaklanarak, toplulukların inşa ettikleri “mekânsal zekâ”yı anlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Buna bağlı olarak kullanıcıların parkı nasıl sahiplendiğini incelemekte, tercih ettikleri mekânsal özellikleri belirlemekte ve katılımcı tasarımın gündelik pratiklerinin mekânsal programlamaya nasıl dönüştürebileceğini araştırmaktadır. Araştırma süreci, katılımcı tasarıma dayalı nitel bir durum çalışması olarak kurgulanmış ve keşif, görselleştirme, yansıtma ve iş birliği olmak üzere dört aşamalı bir çerçeveye dayandırılmıştır. Katılımcı örneklemi, yedi grup hâlinde düzenlenen 35 gönüllü park kullanıcısından oluşmaktadır. Katılımcıların dâhil olduğu aşamalardan elde edilen veriler, transekt yürüyüşleri, eskiz temelli prototipleme, kolektif haritalama ve tasarım büfesi tekniği aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Görsel veriler, betimleyici okuma yaklaşımı, MAXQDA yazılımında mekânsal kodlama ve tematik yorum analizi yoluyla değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, kullanım örüntüleri ile katılımcıların önerdiği mekânsal öncelikler arasında güçlü bir örtüşme olduğunu göstermektedir. Katılımcılar tarafından en sık vurgulanan unsur, aydınlatma, oturma birimleri, kameriyeler ve korkuluklar gibi donatılar ile mevcut kullanımların korunması olmuştur. Daha özelde, girişlerin hizmet odakları olarak kullanıldığı, göl kıyısının aktif bir rekreasyon sınırı olarak görüldüğü ve güvenliğin görünürlük, dolaşım ve mekân yönetiminin birleşimi olarak yorumlandığı ortaya konmuştur. Buna ek olarak kullanıcı beklentileri ile kurumsal geri bildirimlerin erişilebilirlik, güvenlik, konfor ve çocuk dostu mekânlar konularında örtüştüğü belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak çalışma; gündelik kamusal mekân pratiklerinin yapılandırılmış mekânsal stratejilere nasıl dönüştürülebileceğini göstererek enformellik, mekân oluşturma ve katılımcı tasarım kavramlarına katkı sunmaktadır. Ayrıca kullanıcı odaklı müdahalelerin güvenli, kapsayıcı, erişilebilir ve dirençli kamusal mekânları nasıl destekleyebileceğini ortaya koyarak Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amacı 11’e , özellikle de 11.7 hedefine, pratik bir katkı sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sömürgecilik Sonrası Afrika Kentleri
• Abuja
• Enformel Kamusal Mekân
• Katılımcı Tasarım
• Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amaçları (SKA 11)

Participatory Spatial Production in Informal Public Spaces: The Case of Jabi Lakefront Park, Abuja

Öz

In many postcolonial African cities, public spaces are largely shaped by everyday informal practices. However, studies on how users appropriate such spaces remain limited. In rapidly growing cities such as Abuja, which retain Western planning traditions, examining the process of informal spatial production is valuable. Focusing on Jabi Lakefront Park in Abuja, where informal practices dominate, this study explores how communities construct a “spatial logic”. In this context, it examines how users appropriate the park, identify the spatial characteristics, and investigate how participatory design can transform everyday practices into spatial programming. The research was designed as a qualitative case study based on participatory design and structured around a four-stage framework: exploration, visualization, reflection, and collaboration. The participant sample consists of 35 park users organized into seven groups. Data generated by the users through the mentioned stages were collected by transect walks, sketch-based prototyping, collective mapping, and the design buffet technique. The visual data were analyzed through descriptive reading, spatial coding in MAXQDA, and thematic comment analysis. The findings show a strong overlap between patterns of use and the spatial priorities proposed by participants. The most frequently emphasized elements were infrastructures such as lighting, seating units, gazebos, and railings, together with the preservation of existing uses. The analysis revealed that entrances were treated as service nodes, the lakeside as a recreational edge, and safety as a combination of visibility, circulation, and spatial management. In addition, user expectations and institutional feedback overlapped in relation to accessibility, safety, comfort, and child-friendly spaces. As a result, the study contributes to informality, placemaking, and participatory design by demonstrating how everyday public-space practices can be transformed into structured spatial strategies. It also contributes practically to Sustainable Development Goal 11, particularly Target 11.7, by showing how user-centered interventions can support safe, inclusive, accessible, and resilient public spaces.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Postcolonial African Cities
• Abuja
• Informal Public Space
• Participatory Design
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 11)

Kaynakça

1. Abubakar, I. R. (2014). Abuja city profile. Cities, 41, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.05.008
2. Abubakar, I. R., & Doan, P. L. (2010). Building to cope with Nigeria’s urban housing crisis: The informal rental housing sector in Kano. Urban Forum, 21(3), 307–323.
3. Abubakar, I., Dalglish, S. L., Angell, B., Sanuade, O., Abimbola, S., Adamu, A. L., ... & Zanna, F. H. (2022). The Lancet Nigeria Commission: Investing in health and the future of the nation. The Lancet, 399(10330), 1155–1200.
4. Abumere, S. I. (1984). The future population of the federal capital territory, Abuja. The Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies, 26(3), 287–313.
5. Adamu, S. U., Yong, H., Yusuf, D. A., & Bala, H. S. (2025). Who gets to use the green? Exploring access, perceptions, and usage patterns in a post-colonial capital of Sub-Saharan Africa. Habitat International, 166, 103615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2025.103615
6. Adams, J. L. (2019). Conceptual blockbusting: A guide to better ideas. Hachette UK.
7. Aditya, N., Natalia, T., Imaniar, L., & Astuti, S. (2020). Kampong KB Public Open Space Design Based on a Participatory. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 879. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/879/1/012160
8. Adegun, O. B., Ikudayisi, A. E., Morakinyo, T. E., & Olusoga, O. O. (2021). Urban green infrastructure in Nigeria: A review. Scientific African, 14, e01044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e01044

9. Anyamba, T. (2011). Informal urbanism in Nairobi. Built Environment, 37(1), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.37.1.57
10. Beza, B. B. (2016). The role of deliberative planning in translating best practice into good practice: From placeless-ness to placemaking. Planning Theory & Practice, 17(2), 244–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1156730
11. Belgrave, A. B., Bermudez, V. N., Chew, P., Lin, Y., Ahn, J., & Bustamante, A. S. (2022). Using a participatory design approach for co-creating culturally situated STEM enrichment activities. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 82, 101451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2022.101451
12. Burdon, D., & Potts, T. (2020). Participatory mapping of natural capital and benefits: Method guidance document. Daryl Burdon Ltd.
13. Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A short introduction. Blackwell.
14. Ehn, P. (1992). Scandinavian design: On participation and skill. In P. Adler & T. Winograd (Eds.), Usability: Turning technologies into tools (pp. 96–132). Oxford University Press.
15. Enoguanbhor, E. C., Gollnow, F., Walker, B. B., Nielsen, J. O., & Lakes, T. (2022). Simulating urban land expansion in the context of land use planning in the Abuja City-Region, Nigeria. GeoJournal, 87(3), 1479–1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10317-x
16. Foth, M. (2017). Participation, co-creation, and public space. The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.5204/jps.v2i4.139
17. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, (25/26), 56–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/466240
18. Friedman, B., Borning, A., Davis, J. L., Gill, B. T., Kahn Jr, P. H., Kriplean, T., & Lin, P. (2008). Laying the foundations for public participation and value advocacy: Interaction design for a large scale urban simulation. In Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on Digital government research (pp. 305–314).
19. Gashu, K., Gebre-Egziabher, T., & Wubneh, M. (2020). Local communities’ perceptions and use of urban green infrastructure in two Ethiopian cities: Bahir Dar and Hawassa. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(2), 287–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1578643
20. Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: Using public space (6th ed.). Island Press.
21. Geschka, H. (1979). Methods and organisation of idea generation. Paper presented at Creativity Development Week II, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
22. Habitat III. (2016). Policy paper 2: Socio-cultural urban framework.
23. Handayani, N., & Kusumaningdyah, L. (2019). The techniques of participatory design for inclusive public space provision in Kampung Kota of Surakarta.
24. Harani, A. R., Riskiyanto, R., Kusuma, A. M., & Harsritanto, B. I. (2025). The livability of urban environment based on the Spatial arrangement of local practice in limited space. City, Territory and Architecture, 12(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-025-00290-8
25. Herslund, L., & Mguni, P. (2019). Examining urban water management practices – Challenges and possibilities for transitions to sustainable urban water management in Sub-Saharan cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 48, 101573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101573
26. Hou, J. (2022). Building community capacity as just urban design: Learning from Seattle’s Chinatown International District. In K. Goh, A. Loukaitou-Sideris, & V. Mukhija (Eds.), Just urban design: The struggle for a public city (pp. 165–182). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/13982.003.0015
27. Huchzermeyer, M. (2021). A critical Lefebvrian perspective on planning in relation to informal settlements in South Africa. Town and Regional Planning, 79, 44–54. https://doi.org/10.18820/2415-0495/trp79i1.6
28. IPA (International Planning Associates). (1979). Abuja Master Plan. Washington, DC.
29. Kombe, W. J. (2005). Land use dynamics in peri-urban areas and their implications on the urban growth and form: The case of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Habitat International, 29(1), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-3975(03)00076-6
30. Lenzi, M., Vieno, A., Pastore, M., & Santinello, M. (2013). Neighborhood social connectedness and adolescent civic engagement: An integrative model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.003
31. Lindley, S., Pauleit, S., Yeshitela, K., Cilliers, S., & Shackleton, C. (2018). Rethinking urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services from the perspective of sub-Saharan African cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 180, 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.016
32. Mahabadi, S., Zabihi, H., & Majedi, H. (2014). Participatory design: A new approach to regenerate the public space. Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 4(4).
33. Malpas, J. (1999). Place and experience: A philosophical topography. Cambridge University Press.
34. Micek, M., & Staszewska, S. (2019). Urban and rural public spaces: Development issues and qualitative assessment. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 45(45), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2019-0025
35. Montero, M. (2009). Community action and research as citizenship construction. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43, 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9224-6
36. Myers, G. (2011). African cities: Alternative visions of urban theory and practice. Zed Books.
37. Olajide, O. A., Agunbiade, M. E., & Bishi, H. B. (2018). The realities of Lagos urban development vision on livelihoods of the urban poor. Journal of Urban Management, 7(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2018.03.001
38. Parnell, S., & Pieterse, E. (2016). Translational global praxis: Rethinking methods and modes of African urban research. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(1), 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12278
39. Sanoff, H. (2022). Participatory design. DEPARCH Journal of Design Planning and Aesthetics Research, 1(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.55755/DepArch.2022.8
40. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
41. Shackleton, C. M., & Gwedla, N. (2021). The legacy effects of colonial and apartheid imprints on urban greening in South Africa: Spaces, species, and suitability. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 579813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.579813
42. Shibley, R. G., Schneekloth, L. H., & Hovey, B. (2003). Constituting the public realm of a region: Placemaking in the bi-national Niagaras. Journal of Architectural Education, 57(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1162/104648803322336566
43. Spinuzzi, C. (2005). The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communication, 52(2), 163–174.
44. Steen, M. (2013). Co-design as a process of joint inquiry and imagination. Design Issues, 29(2), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00207
45. Stout, M. D. (2008). Place | participation + contested space: Local practices of placemaking in Over-the-Rhine (Master's thesis, University of Cincinnati).
46. Strydom, W., & Puren, K. (2013). A participatory approach to public space design as informative for place-making. Challenges of Modern Technology, 4(4), 33–40.
47. Tiruwa, A., Yadav, R., & Suri, P. K. (2019). Sentiment analysis: An effective way of interpreting consumer’s inclinations towards a brand. In Transforming Organizations Through Flexible Systems Management (pp. 205–219). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9640-3_12
48. United Nations. (2024). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2024. United Nations.
49. UN-Habitat. (2009). Planning sustainable cities: Policy directions – Global report on human settlements 2009. United Nations Human Settlements Programme.
50. UN-Habitat. (2014). The global toolkit on public space: From global principles to local policies and practice. United Nations Human Settlements Programme.
51. UN-Habitat. (2020). City-wide public space assessment toolkit: A guide to achieve sustainable urban development.
52. Urbanet. (n.d.). Planning Abuja: A garden city or a segregated space? Retrieved from https://www.urbanet.info/planning-abuja/
53. Watson, V. (2009). Seeing from the South: Refocusing urban planning on the globe’s central urban issues. Urban Studies, 46, 2259–2275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009342598
54. Yeshitela, K. (2020). Attitude and perception of residents towards the benefits, challenges and quality of neighborhood parks in a sub-Saharan Africa city. Land, 9(11), 450. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9110450
55. Zakka, S. D., Permana, A. S., Majid, M. R., Danladi, A., & Bako, P. E. (2017). Urban greenery a pathway to environmental sustainability in Sub Saharan Africa: a case of Northern Nigeria cities. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 4(3)