Dijital Halk Katılımı: Taksim Meydanı'nın Geleceği Üzerine Düşünceler

Öz

Yirmi birinci yüzyılda kentler, artan kentsel nüfusa, sürekli değişen ekonomik koşullara, yeni teknolojilere ve değişen bir iklime cevap verme sorumluluğu ile karşı karşıyadır. Bir yandan kentsel gelişimin artan karmaşıklığı, diğer yandan vatandaşların kentsel planlamada daha aktif bir şekilde rol almaya yönelik artan talepleri yeni ve daha etkili stratejilerin geliştirilmesi gerekliliğini gündeme getirmiştir. Mevcut halk katılımı yöntemleri, sürdürülebilir kentsel kalkınmaya yönelik süreçlerde yetersiz kalmakta; bu kapsamda doğrudan vatandaşların deneyimlerinden ve tercihlerinden öğrenen yeni veri kaynağı tekniklerine yönelik ihtiyaçlar artmaktadır. Bu durum, toplumun etkileşim kurmasına ve görüşlerini temsil etmesine olanak tanıyan, yerel bağlamlara ve özgün niteliklere yönelik uyaralanabilen ve haritalama yeteneklerine sahip olan çevrimiçi coğrafi anketler gibi dijital halk katılımı yöntemlerine daha fazla ilgi duyulmasına yol açmıştır. Bu araştırma, İstanbul'un önemli bir merkezi olan Taksim Meydanı’nın ampirik bir çalışması aracılığıyla, kentsel tasarım uygulamalarına halkın katılımını teşvik etmeye yönelik olarak Dijital Halk Katılım Araçlarının rolünü araştırmaktadır. Bu araştırmanın kavramsal sonuçları, dijital halk katılımı araçlarının kentsel tasarım uygulamalarına nasıl etkili bir şekilde entegre edilebileceğini gösterirken, ampirik bulgular, kentsel tasarıma yönelik katılımcı bir yaklaşıma ulaşmak için coğrafi tabanlı dijital halk katılımı araçlarının olası girdilerini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital Halk Katılımı
• Kentsel Tasarım
• Coğrafi Anketler
• Katılımcı Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri
• Taksim Meydanı

Digital public participation: reflections on the future of Taksim square

Öz

The growing complexity of urban development has required the development of new and more capable strategies. In addition, there are demands for an enhanced role in urban planning from an increasingly powerful citizenry. Since current public participation methods are ineffective at gathering useful information regarding sustainable urban development, new data-sourcing techniques that learn directly from the experiences and preferences of citizens are required. This has led to greater interest in new digital public participation methods, such as the use of online geo-questionnaires with mapping capabilities, which can be tailored to local contexts and allow large groups to engage and have their views represented. This paper explores the role of Digital Public Participation Tools (DPPTs) to foster public participation in urban design practices through an empirical study of Taksim Square, a major center of Istanbul. The conceptual results of this research illustrate how digital public participation tools may be effectively integrated into urban design practices, while the empirical findings reveal the possible input of digital public participation tools in achieving a participatory approach towards urban design.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital Public Participation
• Urban Design
• Geo-questionnaires
• Public Participation GIS
• Taksim Square

Kaynakça

1. Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific [ANSA-EAP]. (2010). Participatory Planning in East Asia A Mapping Study. Unpublished draft, ANSA-EAP and PRIA Global Partnership.
2. Afzalan N & Muller B (2014). The role of social media in green infrastructure planning: A case study of neighborhood participation in park sitting. Journal of Urban Technology, 21(3), 67-83.
3. Afzalan N & Muller B (2018). Online participatory technologies: Opportunities and challenges for enriching participatory planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 84 (2), 162-177.
4. Allwinkle S & Cruickshank P (2011). Creating smart-er cities: An overview. Journal of Urban Technology, 18 (2), 1 – 16.
5. Arnstein S R (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 35(4), 216-224.
6. Ataöv A (2013). Karar verme süreçlerinin demokratikleşmesinde stratejik yaklaşımın rolü ve örnek uygulamalar süreç tasarımı, katılım ve eylem. [The role of a strategic approach in the democratization of decision-making processes: process design, participation and action]. Planlama Dergisi, 23 (3), 125-133.
7. Bąkowska E, Kaczmarek T, Jankowski P, Zwoliński Z, Mikuła Ł, Czepkiewicz M & Brudka C (2016). Geo-questionnaire in urban planning–preliminary results of the experimental application in Poland. Rozwój Regionalny i Polityka Regionalna, (35), 37-54.
8. Batorski D (2014). Poles and communication technology - access conditions and modes of use. In J. Czapiński and T. Panek (Eds.), Social diagnosis 2013: the objective and subjective quality of life in Poland, (pp. 335–359). Warsaw: The Council for Social Monitoring.

9. Blake G, Diamond J, Foot J, Gidley B, Mayo M, Shukra K & Yarnit M (2008). Community engagement and community cohesion, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
10. Blakey H, Pearce J & Chester G (2006). Minorities within minorities: beneath the surface of community participation. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
11. Borgman C L (2007). Scholarship in the digital age. MIT Press.
12. Bovaird T & Loeffler E (2012). From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. Voluntas, 23, 1119–1138.
13. Brown G & Kyttä M (2014) Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied Geography, 46, 122–136.
14. Castells M (1983). The City and the grassroots: A cross-cultural theory of urban social movements. CA: University of California Press.
15. Corburn J (2005). Street science: Community knowledge and environmental health justice. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press: Cambridge.
16. Cornwall A (2008). Democratising engagement: What the UK can learn from international experience. London: Demos.
17. Czepkiewicz M, Brudka C, Jankowski P, Kaczmarek T, Zwoliński Z, Mikuła Ł & Wójcicki M (2016). Public Participation GIS for sustainable urban mobility planning: methods, applications and challenges. Rozwój Regionalny i Polityka Regionalna, 35, 9-35.
18. Czepkiewicz M, Jankowski P & Młodkowski M (2017). Geo-questionnaires in urban planning: Recruitment methods, participant engagement, and data quality. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 44 (6), 551-567.
19. Davidoff P (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 31 (4), 331–338.
20. Degbelo A, Granell C, Trilles S, Bhattacharya D, Casteleyn S & Kray C (2016). Opening up smart cities: Citizen-centric challenges and opportunities from GIScience. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 5 (2), 16.
21. Ertiö T P (2015). Participatory apps for urban planning—space for improvement. Planning Practice & Research, 30 (3), 303-321.
22. Fainstein S S (2005). Planning theory and the city. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25 (2), 121-130.
23. Falco E & Kleinhans R (2018). Digital participatory platforms for co- production in urban development: A systematic review. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 7 (3).
24. Ghose R (2017). 1.29 Defining public participation GIS. Comprehensive Geographic Information Systems, 3, 431-437.
25. Goodchild M F (2007). Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211–221.
26. Graeff E (2014, September). Crowdsourcing as reflective political practice: building a location-based tool for civic learning and engagement. Proceedings of the Internet, Politics, and Policy 2014: Crowdsourcing for Politics and Policy conference.
27. Graham S (2002). Bridging Urban Digital Divides? Urban Polarisation and Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs). Urban Studies, 39(1). 33-56.
28. Habermas J (1992). Further Reflections on the Public Sphere. In C. Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp. 421-461). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Hampton K N (2007). Neighborhoods in the network society the e-neighbors study. ınformation, Communication & Society, 10 (5), 714-748.
30. Healey P (1997). Collobrative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan.
31. Howe J (2006, June 6). The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired Magazine, 14 (6), 1-4.
32. Innes J (1995). Planning Theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Jurnal of Planning Education and Research, 14, 183-189 International Association for Public Participation. (2007). IAP2 Public Participation Pillars.
33. Jankowski P, Czepkiewicz M, Młodkowski M, Wójcicki M & Zwolinski Z (2016). Scalability in Participatory Planning: A comparison of online PPGIS methods with faceto-face meetings. International Conference on GIScience Short Paper Proceedings, 1(1).
34. Jenkins H (2001). Convergence? I diverge. Technology Review.
35. Jenkins H (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.
36. Kahila M & Kyttä M (2009). SoftGIS as a bridge builder in collaborative urban planning. In S. Geertman & J. Stillwell (Eds), Planning support systems: best practices and new methods (pp. 389–411). Netherlands: Springer.
37. Kahila-Tani,M, Broberg A, Kyttä M & Tyger T (2016). Let the citizens map—public participation GIS as a planning support system in the Helsinki master plan process. Planning Practice & Research, 31(2), 195-214.
38. Kaiser E J, Godschalk D R & Chapin F S (1995). Urban land use planning. IL: University of Illinois press.
39. Kingston R (2007). Public participation in local policy decision- making: the role of web-based mapping, The Cartographic Journal, 44 (2), 138–144.
40. Locke M, Ellis A & Smith J D (2003). Hold on to what you’ve got: the volunteer retention literature. Voluntary Action, 5 (3), 81-99.
41. Longueville B D, Ostlander N & Keskitalo C (2010). Addressing vagueness in volunteered geographic information (VGI): A case study. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 5, 1725 – 1463.
42. Macintosh A (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 10-pp). Big Island, HI, USA: IEEE.
43. Margerum R (2002). Collaborative planning building consensus and building a distinct model for practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21 (3), 237 – 253.
44. McMillan S J (2002). A four-part model of cyber-interactivity: Some cyber-places are more interactive than others. New Media & Society, 4 (2), 271-291.
45. Møller M S, Olafsson A S, Vierikko K, Sehested K, Elands B, Buijs A & van den Bosch C K (2019). Participation through place-based e-tools: A valuable resource for urban green infrastructure governance? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 40 (2019), 245-253.
46. Mueller J, Lu H, Chirkin A, Klein B & Schmitt G (2018). Citizen design science: A strategy for crowd-creative urban design. Cities, 72 (2018), 181-188.
47. Omsrud H & Craglia M (2003). Special issues on Access and Participatory Approaches in Using Geographic Information. URISA Journal, 15(1), 5–7.
48. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2001). Citizens as partners: Information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. Paris: OECD.
49. Parker S (2007). Participation: A new operating system for public services? In Creasy, E. (Ed.), Participation Nation: reconnecting citizens to the public realm (pp. 103-112). London: Involve.
50. Perkins C (2007). Community mapping. The Cartographic Journal, 44 (2), 127-137.
51. Praharaj S, Han J H & Hawken S (2017). Innovative civic engagement and digital urban infrastructure: Lessons from 100 smart cities mission in India. Procedia Engineering, 180 (2017), 1423-1432.
52. Quick K S & Feldman M S (2011). Distinguishing participation and inclusion. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31 (3), 272-290.
53. Rall E, Hansen R & Pauleit S (2019). The added value of public participation GIS (PPGIS) for urban green infrastructure planning. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 40 (2019), 264-274.
54. Roth R E (2013). Interactive maps: What we know and what we need to know. Journal of Spatial Information Science, 0 (6), 59–115.
55. Sager T (1994). Communicative planning theory. Aldershot: Avebury.
56. Sanoff H (2000). Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. New York: Wiley.
57. Sanoff H (2006). Multiple views of participatory design. International Journal of Architectural Research, 2 (1), 57-69.
58. Seltzer E & Mahmoudi D (2012). Citizen participation, open innovation, and crowdsourcing: Challenges and opportunities for planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 28 (1), 3–18.
59. Sparks C (2001). The Internet and the global public sphere. In L. Bennet and R. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 75–95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60. Sui D, Elwood S & Goodchild M (2013). Volunteered geographic ınformation, the exaflood, and the growing digital divide. In D. Sui, S. Elwood, M. Goodchild (Eds.), Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge (pp. 1-12). Netherlands: Springer.
61. Tambouris E, Kalampokis E, & Tarabanis K (2008). A domain model for eParticipation. 2008 Third International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services, 25-30.
62. Tayebi A (2013). Planning activism: Using social media to claim marginalized citizens’ right to the city. Cities, 32(2013), 88 – 93.
63. Tekeli İ (2009). Akılcı planlamadan, bir demokrasi projesi olarak planlamaya [From rational planning to planning as a democracy project]. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
64. Trenz H J (2009). Digital media and the return of the representative public sphere. Javnost-The Public, 16(1), 33-46.
65. Van Dijk J (2012). The network society. London: Sage Publications.
66. Volkmer I (2003). The global network society and the global public sphere. Development, 46 (1), 9-16.