POST-DİSASTER SPATİAL COMMONİNG AND SOCİAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Öz

Post-disaster spatial transformation processes are not limited to physical reconstruction; rather, they encompass multi-layered dynamics such as the indeterminacy of property relations, the transformation of community organization models, and the re-evaluation of spatial justice. This study examines the relationship between the indeterminacy of property ownership and spatial commoning within a theoretical framework, discussing how social infrastructure functions as a mechanism in these transformation processes. The indeterminacy of property ownership may create new opportunities for spatial commoning; however, the sustainability of such a process depends on the integration of social infrastructure (Klinenberg, 2018; Latham & Layton, 2019, 2022) with spatial governance mechanisms. Social infrastructure not only provides physical spaces for post-disaster spatial commoning but also reinforces collective governance structures and fosters community-based participation. This study explores the role of social infrastructure in spatial commoning through the development of self-governance mechanisms, the integration of participatory design into common space production, and the institutionalization of spatial justice. This analysis introduces new theoretical frameworks for understanding how social infrastructure can support post-disaster spatial commoning and how this process can be sustained. The findings of this study are expected to provide significant insights into the development of post-disaster urbanization policies and alternative spatial governance models.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Post-disaster urbanization
• Spatial commoning
• Social infrastructure
• Spatial justice
• Collective governance

AFET SONRASI MEKÂNSAL MÜŞTEREKLEŞME VE SOSYAL ALTYAPI

Öz

Afet sonrası mekânsal dönüşüm süreçleri, yalnızca fiziksel yeniden yapılanma ile sınırlı kalmayıp, mülkiyet ilişkilerinin belirsizleşmesi, topluluk örgütlenme biçimlerinin dönüşümü ve mekânsal adaletin yeniden değerlendirilmesi gibi çok katmanlı dinamikleri içermektedir. Bu çalışma, afet sonrası mülkiyetin belirsizleşmesi ile mekânsal müşterekleşme arasındaki ilişkiyi kuramsal bir çerçevede ele almakta ve sosyal altyapının bu dönüşüm süreçlerinde nasıl bir mekanizma olarak işlev görebileceğini tartışmaktadır. Mülkiyetin belirsizleşmesi, mekânsal müşterekleşme için yeni fırsatlar yaratabilir. Ancak böyle bir sürecin sürdürülebilirliği, sosyal altyapının (Klinenberg, 2018; Latham ve Layton, 2019, 2022) mekânsal yönetişim mekanizmalarıyla bütünleşmesine bağlıdır. Sosyal altyapı, afet sonrası mekânsal müşterekleşmenin sürekliliğini sağlamak amacıyla yalnızca fiziksel mekânlar sağlamakla kalmaz, aynı zamanda kolektif yönetişim mekanizmalarını güçlendirerek topluluk temelli katılımı teşvik eder. Çalışma, sosyal altyapının müşterekleşme süreçlerinde nasıl bir işlev üstlenebileceğini, özyönetim mekanizmalarının geliştirilmesi, katılımcı tasarımın müşterek mekân üretimine entegrasyonu ve mekânsal adaletin kurumsallaşması bağlamında ele almaktadır. Bu analiz, afet sonrası sosyal altyapının mekânsal müşterekleşmeyi nasıl destekleyebileceği ve bu sürecin nasıl sürdürülebilir hale getirilebileceği konularında yeni teorik çerçeveler sunmaktadır. Çalışmanın bulgularının, afet sonrası kentleşme politikaları ve alternatif mekânsal yönetişim modelleri açısından önemli çıkarımlar sağlaması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Afet sonrası kentleşme
• Mekânsal müşterekleşme
• Sosyal altyapı
• Mekânsal adalet
• Kolektif yönetişim.

Kaynakça

1. Adnan, S. A., Shok, M. E., Hussain, Z. I., & Alkinani, A. S. (2024). Multigenerational urban design: Creating urban spaces that support active aging and intergenerational interaction. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 19(10), 3737–3747. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.191004
2. Aldrich, D. P. (2012). Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
3. Aldrich, D. P. & Meyer, M. A. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 254-269.
4. Aldrich, D. P. (2019). Black Wave: How Networks and Governance Shaped Japan's 3/11 Disasters. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5. Amin, A.,& Thrift, N. (2002). Cities: Reimagining the Urban. Cambridge: Polity Press.
6. Appadurai, A. (2001). Deep democracy: urban governmentality and the horizon of politics. Environment and Urbanization, 13(2), 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624780101300203
7. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
8. Awan, N., Schneider, T. & Till, J. (2011). Spatial agency: Other ways of doing architecture. Routledge.

9. Basnou, C., Pino, J., Davies, C., Winkel, G., & De Vreese, R. (2020). Co-design processes to address nature-based solutions and ecosystem services demands: The long and winding road towards inclusive urban planning. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 2, 572556. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2020.572556
10. Blomley, N. (2008). Enclosure, common right and the property of the poor. Social & Legal Studies, 17(3), 311-331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663908093966
11. Blundell Jones, P., Petrescu, D. ve Till, J. (Eds.). (2005). Architecture and participation. New York, NY: Spon Press.
12. Chatterton, P. (2016). Building transitions to post-capitalist urban commons. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41(4), 403-415. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12139
13. Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking 'participation': models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269-283. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsn010
14. Çoban, M.ve Eren, M. (2021). Afetler Sonrası Toplumsal Dayanışmanın Sürdürülebilirliği: 17 Ağustos Depremi Örneği. Sakarya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 25(1), 124–143. https://doi.org/10.54614/susbed.897412
15. De Angelis, M. (2017). Omnia sunt communia: On the commons and the transformation to postcapitalism. London, UK: Zed Books.
16. De Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. New York, NY: Basic Books.
17. Elliott, J. R. & Pais, J. (2006). Race, class, and Hurricane Katrina: social differences in human responses to disaster. Social Science Research, 35(2), 295-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.02.003
18. Fainstein, S. S. (2010). The Just City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
19. Federici, S. (2019). Re-enchanting the world: Feminism and the politics of the commons. Oakland, CA: PM Press.
20. Gümüş, H. (2017). Toplumsal mekân üretiminde müşterekleştirme pratikleri: Düzce Umut Evleri (Yüksek lisans tezi, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Tez No. 467881). Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
21. Harvey, D. (2003). The new imperialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22. Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. London, UK: Verso.
23. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.
24. Huron, A. (2018). Carving out the commons: Tenant organizing and housing cooperatives in Washington, D.C. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
25. Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
26. Klinenberg, E. (2018). Palaces for the people: How social ınfrastructure can help fight inequality, polarization, and the decline of civic life. New York, NY: Crown.
27. Korkmaz, T.ve Avcı, S. (2023). Afet Sonrası Planlama Süreçlerinde Topluluk Temelli Müdahale Olanakları: 6 Şubat Depremleri Üzerinden Bir Değerlendirme. Vizyoner Dergisi, 14(38), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.878817
28. Latham, A. & Layton, J. (2019). Social infrastructure and the public life of cities: Studying urban sociality and public spaces. Geography Compass, 13(6), e12444. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12444
29. Latham, A. & Layton, J. (2022). Social infrastructure: Why it matters and how urban geographers might study it. Urban Geography, 43(5), 659-668. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2021.2003609
30. Layton, J. & Latham, A. (2022). Social infrastructure and public life – Notes on Finsbury Park, London. Urban Geography, 43(5), 755-776. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2021.1934631
31. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space(D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1974)
32. Mitchell, D. (2003). The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public space. New York: Guilford Press.
33. Morrow, B. H. (1999). Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters, 23(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7717.00102
34. Mugari, E., Nethengwe, N. S., & Gumbo, A. D. (2025). A co-design approach for stakeholder engagement and knowledge integration in flood risk management in Vhembe district, South Africa. Frontiers in Climate, 7, 1517837. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2025.1517837
35. Oliver-Smith, A. (1996). Anthropological research on hazards and disasters. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25, 303-328. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2155829
36. Oliver-Smith, A. (2010). Haiti and the historical construction of disasters.NACLA Report on the Americas, 43(4), 32-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714839.2010.11725505
37. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38. Pelling, M. (2003). The vulnerability of cities: Natural disasters and social resilience. London, UK: Earthscan.
39. Purcell, M. (2002). Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and its urban politics of the inhabitant. GeoJournal, 58(2-3), 99-108.
40. Purcell, M. (2006). Urban democracy and the local trap. Urban Studies, 43(11), 1921-1941.
41. Roy, A. (2011). Slumdog cities: Rethinking subaltern urbanism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(2), 223-238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01051.x
42. Sanders, E. B. N. & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design, 4(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
43. Schuller, M. (2016). Humanitarian Aftershocks in Haiti. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
44. Simone, A. (2004). For the city yet to come: Changing African life in four cities. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
45. Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
46. Solnit, R. (2009). A paradise built in hell: The extraordinary communities that arise in disaster. New York, NY: Viking.
47. Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991-2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098050027986
48. Stavrides, S. (2016). Common space: The city as commons.London, UK: Zed Books.
49. Tomaney, J., Blackman, M., Natarajan, L., Panayotopoulos-Tsiros, D., Sutcliffe-Braithwaite, F., & Taylor, M. (2024). Social infrastructure and left behind places. London, UK:Routledge.
50. Xiao, Y.-M., Huang, D.-H., & Lin, R.-T. (2023). Integrating elder and youth into co-design approach—A case study of medication aids design. Creative Education, 14(10), 1914–1944. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2023.1410123
51. Yiftachel, O. (2009). Theoretical notes on 'gray cities': The coming of urban apartheid?Planning Theory, 8(1), 88-100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095208099300