Çatışma Sonrası Kentlerde Rejeneratif Süreklilik: Kamusallık, Kentsel Müşterekler ve Çatışma Duyarlı Normatif Öncelikler

Öz

Bu çalışma, çatışma sonrasında fiziksel yıkımın, kurumsal çözülmenin, meşruiyet krizinin ve topluluklar arası güven kaybının sürdüğü kentlere odaklanmaktadır. Temel araştırma sorusu, bu kentlerde rejeneratif sürekliliğin hangi toplumsal, kurumsal ve ilişkisel koşullar altında kurulabileceğidir. Çalışma, literatüre dayalı kuramsal-kavramsal bir araştırma olarak rejeneratif tasarım, kamusallık ve katılım, kentsel müşterekler ve çatışma sonrası literatürlerini sekiz aşamalı Kavramsal Çerçeve Çözümlemesi aracılığıyla bütünleştirmektedir. Altıncı aşamadaki sentez ve yeniden sentez işlemi, kırılganlık kümesi → süreklilik bileşeni → işleyiş mekanizması → normatif öncelik zincirine dayanan mekanizma temelli normatif türetimle genişletilmiştir. Çözümleme, kamusallık ile kentsel müşterekler arasındaki ilişkinin rejeneratif sürekliliğin üç bileşenini birlikte açıklayan temel analitik bağı oluşturduğunu göstermektedir: toplumsal sahiplenme ve meşruiyet, bakım ve işletme sürekliliği, kurumsallaşma ve yönetişim kapasitesi. Çatışma sonrası sorun alanları, baskın zayıflatma etkilerine göre üç kırılganlık kümesinde düzenlenmiştir: kamusal meşruiyet ve temsiliyet kırılganlığı; kurumsal işleyiş ve işletme sürekliliğindeki kırılganlık; ilişkiye bağlı güven ve kolektif eylem kırılganlığı. Kümeler, baskın biçimde zayıflattıkları süreklilik bileşenleri ile ilgili kamusal, kurumsal ve ilişkisel işleyiş mekanizmalarıyla ilişkilendirilmiştir. Bu eşleştirme sonucunda altı çatışma duyarlı normatif öncelik türetilmiştir: kapsayıcı erişim, müzakereci kapasite, yönetişimsel hesap verebilirlik, çok ölçekli eş güdüm, ortak işletme sürekliliği ve ilişkiye bağlı güven inşası. Çalışma, meşruiyet, bakım ve işletme, yönetişim ve güven ilişkilerini geri izlenebilir bir türetim düzeninde bir araya getirerek bağlamsal değerlendirme ve önceliklendirmeye açık, analitik olarak temellendirilmiş bir normatif çerçeve sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• rejeneratif süreklilik
• kamusallık
• kentsel müşterekler
• çatışma sonrası kentler
• yönetişim kapasitesi

Destekleyen Kurum

Finansal destek bulunmamaktadır.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma için etik kurul iznine gerek yoktur.

Teşekkür

Teşekkür edilecek kişi veya kurum bulunmamaktadır.

Regenerative Continuity in Post-Conflict Cities: Publicness, Urban Commons, and Conflict-Sensitive Normative Priorities

Öz

This study focuses on post-conflict cities where physical destruction, institutional disintegration, a legitimacy crisis, and loss of trust between communities persist. It asks under what social, institutional, and relational conditions regenerative continuity can be established. As a literature-based theoretical and conceptual study, it integrates regenerative design, publicness and participation, urban commons, and post-conflict literature through an eight-phase Conceptual Framework Analysis. The sixth phase extends synthesis and resynthesis through mechanism-based normative derivation: vulnerability cluster → continuity component → mechanism → normative priority. Publicness and urban commons form the central analytical link explaining three components of regenerative continuity: social ownership and legitimacy, continuity of maintenance and operation, and institutionalization and governance capacity. Post-conflict problem areas were grouped into three vulnerability clusters according to their dominant weakening effects: vulnerability in public legitimacy and representation; vulnerability in institutional functioning and continuity of operation; and vulnerability in relationship-based trust and collective action. Each cluster was linked to the continuity components most strongly weakened by its problem areas and to related public, institutional, and relational mechanisms. This matching yielded six conflict-sensitive normative priorities: inclusive access, deliberative capacity, governance accountability, multiscalar coordination, continuity of shared operation, and relationship-based trust-building. The study brings legitimacy, maintenance and operation, governance, and trust together within a traceable derivation structure and proposes an analytically grounded normative framework open to contextual evaluation and prioritization.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• regenerative continuity
• publicness
• urban commons
• post-conflict cities
• governance capacity

Destekleyen Kurum

There is no financial support.

Etik Beyan

Ethics committee approval is not required for this study.

Teşekkür

There are no individuals or institutions to thank.

Kaynakça

1. Axinte, L. F., Mehmood, A., Marsden, T., & Roep, D. (2019). Regenerative city-regions: A new conceptual framework. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 6(1), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2019.1584542
2. Barbalet, J. (2019). The experience of trust: Its content and basis. M. Sasaki (Ed.), Trust in Contemporary Society içinde (s. 11–30). Brill. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctvrxk3cr.6
3. Booher, D. E., & Innes, J. E. (2002). Network power in collaborative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202100301
4. Brand, U. (2010). Sustainable development and ecological modernization—The limits to a hegemonic policy knowledge. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 23(2), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2010.522403
5. Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2005). Rebuilding governance in failed states and post-conflict societies: Core concepts and cross-cutting themes. Public Administration and Development, 25(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.352
6. Cole, R. J. (2011). Transitioning from green to regenerative design. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2011.610608
7. Cole, R. J., Busby, P., Guenther, R., Briney, L., Blaviesciunaite, A., & Alencar, T. (2012). A regenerative design framework: Setting new aspirations and initiating new discussions. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2011.616098
8. Cornwall, A. (2003). Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory development. World Development, 31(8), 1325–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00086-X

9. Cornwall, A. (2006). Historical perspectives on participation in development. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 44(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/14662040600624460
10. Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘participation’: Models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsn010
11. De Magalhães, C. (2010). Public space and the contracting-out of publicness: A framework for analysis. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2010.502347
12. Gaventa, J., & Cornwall, A. (2006). Challenging the boundaries of the possible: Participation, knowledge and power. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00329.x
13. Gibbons, L. V., Cloutier, S. A., Coseo, P. J., & Barakat, A. (2018). Regenerative development as an integrative paradigm and methodology for landscape sustainability. Sustainability, 10(6), 1910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061910
14. Haider, H. (2017). Breaking the cycle of violence: Applying conflict sensitivity to transitional justice. Conflict, Security & Development, 17(4), 333–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2017.1337420
15. Hay, A. H., Karney, B., & Martyn, N. (2020). Reconstructing infrastructure for resilient essential services during and following protracted conflict: A conceptual framework. International Review of the Red Cross, 101(912), 1001–1029. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383120000053
16. Healey, P. (1998). Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 30(9), 1531–1546. https://doi.org/10.1068/a301531
17. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 412–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369908976071
18. Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
19. Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800406
20. Madanipour, A. (2019). Rethinking public space: Between rhetoric and reality. Urban Design International, 24(1), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-019-00087-5
21. Massey, D. (2005). For space. Sage.
22. Meerkerk, J. (2024). Understanding the governing of urban commons: Reflecting on five key features of collaborative governance in Zero Waste Lab, Amsterdam. International Journal of the Commons, 18(1), 397–410. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.1282
23. Milan, C. (2022). The mobilization for spatial justice in divided societies: Urban commons, trust reconstruction, and social(ist) memory in Bosnia and Herzegovina. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures, 36(2), 669–691. https://doi.org/10.1177/08883254211005173
24. Mitchell, D. (1995). The end of public space? People’s Park, definitions of the public, and democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85(1), 108–133.
25. Mitchell, D. (1996). Introduction: Public space and the city. Urban Geography, 17(2), 127–131. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.17.2.127
26. Németh, J., & Schmidt, S. (2011). The privatization of public space: Modeling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1068/b36057
27. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763
28. Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.137
29. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press.
30. Ostrom, E. (2008). Tragedy of the commons. S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Ed.), The New Palgrave dictionary of economics (2nd ed.) içinde. Palgrave Macmillan.
31. Radywyl, N., & Biggs, C. (2013). Reclaiming the commons for urban transformation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.020
32. Sakalasuriya, M. M., Haigh, R. P., & Amaratunga, D. (2018). A conceptual framework to analyse consequences of post conflict reconstruction interventions. Procedia Engineering, 212, 894–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.115
33. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
34. Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the spectre of climate change. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409358728
35. Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
36. Varna, G., & Tiesdell, S. (2010). Assessing the publicness of public space: The star model of publicness. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 575–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2010.502350
37. While, A., Jonas, A. E. G., & Gibbs, D. (2004). The environment and the entrepreneurial city: Searching for the urban “sustainability fix” in Manchester and Leeds. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(3), 549–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2004.00535.x
38. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.
39. Yunibandhu, R., & Hallinger, P. (2025). From sustainability to regeneration: Mapping the conceptual foundations and future directions of regenerative development. Sustainable Development, 33(6), 8569–8585. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.70112