Kamusal Normlar Karmaşık Planlama Uygulamalarındaki Belirsizlikleri Aşmada Nasıl Yardımcı Olur?

Bu makale, planlamanın çağdaş ikilemlerini, kentsel ve bölgesel planlamanın hâkim pragmatik yaklaşımlarını kamu normlarını kurumsallaş- tırma zorluğuyla karşı karşıya getirerek sorgulamaktadır. Analitik çerçeve, planlamanın normatif boyutunun toplumsallaştırılması (sosyal etki- leşimi ve politikaları koşullandıran ve uygunluğu gerekçelendiren kamu normlarının belirlenmesi) ve planlamanın pragmatik yönelimi (amaca yönelik hedef belirleme ile kamu ve özel sektör arasındaki yatay iş birliğine, problem çözmeye ve hataların düzeltilmesine doğrudan odaklan- ma) arasındaki temel farkı vurgulamaktadır. Yazar, planlamanın meşruiyeti ve etkinliği için iki boyut arasında üretken bir diyalektiğe ihtiyaç olduğunu iddia etmektedir. Ancak devam eden planlama uygulamalarında normatif kurumsal boyutun ihmal edildiği görülmektedir. Ampirik araştırma, parçalı şehir-bölge mekânlarını sürdürülebilir mekân niteliklerine sahip daha tutarlı şehir-bölgesel konfigürasyonlara yönlendirmeyi amaçlayan dönüştürücü planlamanın koşullarını incelemektedir. Şehir-bölgesel dönüşümün üç koşulu incelemeye alınmaktadır: yaşanabilirlik, hareketlilik ve iklime duyarlılık.

How Public Norms Help to Cope with Uncertainty in Complex Practices of Planning

The article questions the contemporary dilemmas of planning by confronting the prevailing pragmatic approaches of urban and regional planning with the challenge to institutionalise public norms. The analytical framework highlights the fundamental difference between the socialisation of the normative dimension of planning (the setting of public norms that condition social interaction and policies and justify the appropriateness) and the pragmatic orientation of planning (the purposive targeting and horizontal collaboration of public and private agencies, the direct focus on problem-solving and the correction of errors). The author claims that a productive dialectic between the two dimensions is needed for the sake of legitimacy and effectiveness of planning. However, the normative institutional dimension appears to be neglected in ongoing practices of planning. The empirical investigation examines the conditions of transformational plan- ning that aims at guiding fragmented city-regional spaces into more coherent city-regional configurations with sustainable qualities of place. Three conditions of city-regional transformation are taken into the examination: habitability, mobility, and the care for the clim

PDF

___

Alfasi, N. and Portugali, J. (2007). Planning rules for a self-planned city. Planning Theory 6:164–182. doi. org/10.1177/1473095207077587.
Balducci, A., Fedeli, V., and Pasqui, G. (2011). Strategic Planning for Contemporary Urban Regions, Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Boelens, L. (2018). Moving towards a flat ontology of ontology of institutional innovation: Actor-related lessons learned from early water management perspectives. pp 92–107 in Salet,
W. (ed.). (2018b). The Routledge Handbook of Institutions and Planning in Action, Routledge: New York.
Blomley, N. (2008). Enclosure, common right and the property of the poor. Social & Legal Studies. 17(3):311–331.
Bossuyt, D.M. (2021). Who owns collaborative housing? A con- ceptual typology of property regimes. Housing, Theory and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2021.1888788
Climate Agreement (2019). Available online: https://www.kli- maatakkoord.nl/documenten/publicaties/2019/06/28/na- tional-climate (accessed on 21 November 2020).
Davoudi, S. (2018). Discursive Institutionalism and Planning Ideas. pp. 61–73 in Salet, W. (ed.). (2018b). The Routledge Handbook of Institutions and Planning in Action, Routledge: New York.
D’Ottaviano, C., Rossetto, N.A., Andrade F.C., Massimetti, F., do Amoral Costa Lima, J. (2020). My House, My Life Pro- gramme-Entities: two self-management experiences in the city of São Paulo. Pp. 79-99 in Salet et al., (Eds.) The Self-Build Experience. Bristol, UK: Polciy Press.
Dewey. (1927). [1964] The Public and its Problems. Athens, OH.: Swallow Press and Ohio University Press.
Enlil, Z., Dinçer, I. (2020). ‘Residential experiences in times of shifting housing regimes in Istanbul’. Pp 167-190, in Salet, W. et al., (Eds.) The Self-Build Experience: Institutionalisation, Place-Making and City Building. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
Espinoza, R.H., Cevallos S.A., Rosero, B., Godoy, I., Marx, J. (2020). Self-management and the production of habitat: a case study of the Alianza Solidaria Housing Cooperative in Quito. Pp. 121- 141 in Salet, W. et al., (Eds.) The Self-Build Experience: Institutionalisation, Place-Making and City Build- ing. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
European Commisson—Green Deal. (2020). Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eu-climate-action_nl (accessed on 26 February 2021).
Fischer, F. and Forester, J. (1993). The Argumentative Turn in Poli- cy Analysis and Planning. Durham: NC: Duke University Press.
Giezen, M., Bertolini, L., and Salet, W.G.M. (2014). The Rand- stadRail Project: A case study in decision-making strategies under uncertainty. Planning Theory & Practice. 15(3):414– 428.
Giezen, M. (2018). Shifting Energy Infrastructure Landscapes in a Circular Economy: An Institutional Work Analysis of the Wa- ter and Energy Sector. Sustainability. 2018,10.3487.
Granqvist, K., Humer, A., and Mäntysalo, R. (2020). Tensions in city-regional spatial planning: the challenge of inter- preting layered institutional rules. Regional Studies. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2019.1707791.
Healey, P. (2010). Making Better Places – The Planning Project in the Twenty-First Century, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Mac- Millan.
Healey, P. (2018). ‘Developing a “Sociological Institutionalist” Approach to Analysing Institutional Change in Place Gover- nance’. Pp. 24-42 in Salet, W. (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Institutions and Planing in Action, New York, NY: Rout- ledge.
Hoch, Ch. (2019). Pragmatic Spatial Planning – Practial Theory for Professionals. New York, NY: Routledge.
Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (2010). Planning with Complexity. New York: Routledge.
Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on cities. Oxford: Blackwell.
Li, Y. and Wagenaar, H. (2019). Revisiting deliberative policy anal- ysis. Policy Studies, 40(5):427–436 https://doi.org/10.1080/0 1442872.2019.1618813.
Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K. (Eds.) (2010). Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency and Power. New York, NY: Cam- bridge University Press.
Mandelbaum, S.J., Mazza, L., and Burchell, R.W. (eds.)(1996). Ex- plorations in Planning Theory. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Mannheim, K. (1940). Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruc- tion. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Massey, D.B. (2005). For Space. London, UK: Sage.
Moroni, S. (2015). Rethinking the theory and practice of land-use regulation: Towards nomocracy. Planning Theory 9:137–155.
Netherlands-Climate Law (2019). No.253 of 2019. Available online: https://www.parlementairemonitor.nl/9353000/1/ j9vvij5epmj1ey0/vl3xsykgt1zo (accessed on 21 November 2020).
Ostrom, E. (1990)(1st. ed.). Governing the Commons. Cam- bridge, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (2020). Klimaat- en Energiev- erkenning 2020. Available online: https://www.pbl.nl/pub- licaties/klimaat-en-energieverkenning-2020 (accessed on 7 December 2020).
Planey, D. (2020) ‘Regional Planning and Institutional Norms in the United States: Civic Society, Regional Planning, and City-Region Building in the Chicago Metropolitan Region’. JEPR, doi.org/10.1177/0739456X20937346.
Purcell, M. (2003). Citizenship and the right to the global city: reimagining the capitalist world order. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27(3):564–590.
Rittel, H.W. and Webber, M.M. (1973). ‘Dilemmas in a general theory of planning’. Policy sciences, 4, 155–169. dx.doi. org/10.1007/BF01405730.
Rechtbank Den Haag. (2015). Climate Case Urgenda. Available online: https://www.urgenda.nl/wp-content/uploads/Ver- dictDistrictCourt (accessed on 21 November 2020).
Roo, G. de, Hillier, J., and van Wezemael, J. (eds.) (2016). Com- plexity and Planning Systems, Assemblages and Simulations, New York: Routledge.
Salet, W. (2018a). Public Norms and Aspirations: The Turn to Institutions in Action. New York: Routledge. https://www. routledge.com/Public-Norms-and-Aspirations-The-Turn-to- Institutions-in-Action/Salet/p/book/9781138084957.
Salet, W. (ed.). (2018b). The Routledge Handbook of Institutions and Planing in Action, Routledge: New York. https://www. routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-Institutions- and-Planning-in-Action/Salet/p/book/9781138085732.
Salet, W., D’Ottaviano, C., Majoor, S., and Bossuyt, D. (2020). The Self-Build Experience. Bristol: Policy Press.
Salet, W. (2021). ‘Public Norms in Practices of Transitional Plan- ning- The Case of Energy Transition in The Netherlands’. Sus- tainability. 13(8):4454, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084454.
Savini, F., Majoor, S., and Salet, W. (2014). Dilemmas of planning: Intervention, regulation, and investment. Planning Theory. 14:296–315. doi.org/ 10.1177/ 1473095214531430.
Savini, F. and Salet, W. (Eds.) (2016). Planning Projects in Tran- sition: Interventions, Regulations and Investments. Berlin: Jovis. https://www.jovis.de/en/books/tendencies/product/ planning_projects_in_transition.html
Scott, J. (1998). Seeing Like a State. New Haven,CT: Yale Univer- sity Press.
Sorensen, A. (2015). ‘Taking path dependency seriously: an his- torical institutionalist research agenda in planning history’. Planning Perspectives. 30:17–38.
Straatemeier, T., (2008). How to plan for regional accessibility? Transport Policy 15:127–137.