An Application of Consistency Testing for Spatial Plans: Case of Trabzon, Türkiye
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2022.224Keywords:
spatial planning, evaluation, guide for evaluation of spatial plans, TrabzonAbstract
The starting point of this study is the problematic perspective of focusing only on the final product in spatial planning, while ignoring the planning process, and a lack of certain standards/criteria of the evaluation stage for the internal and external consistencies of spatial plans. Although it has recently attracted significant interest in the field, the methodological use of evaluation is not widespread in planning practice. Evaluation, which is considered to be a simple checking duty in the Turkish planning system (TPS), is not considered in the related literature and legislation. Focusing on the “evaluation stage” of spatial planning, this paper aims to demonstrate the contribution of the previously developed Guideline for Evaluation of Spatial Plans (GESP) in testing and ensuring the consistency of different scale and types of plans prior to their approval. The first phase of the study focuses on the concept of evaluation, reviews a series of related literature for the evaluation of plans, and discusses the evaluation stage in the TPS. In the second phase, the consistency of the selected case area plansafter addition of new resources that comply with the input of the previously developed evaluation framework GESPis examined. This guideline, which is an analytical method proposal, is applied over the selected cases, involving the upper-scale plans that cover Trabzon province and lower-scale plans for some settlements that were selected from within this province. Consistencies of all the plan components (plan sheets, plan report, plan notes, plan legend) of plans with different scales for the case area were tested in terms of the criteria of the developed guideline. Most of these plans were found to be inconsistent, both internally and externally. In the study, it was determined that the plans in fact contained many inconsistencies on their approval without being subjected to such evaluation. Although the study did not focus on the frequency of evaluation of spatial plans, the parties that will make those evaluations, and how to use their output, it provides basis for future studies. The “evaluation stage”, an important theoretical issue in the international literature, is exemplified for both how it would be handled and tested in practice. Identifying the needs, processes, and problems related to the evaluation stage, mainly for its ex-ante stage, will allow the TPS to intervene in the preparation of plans before their approval. This may have a positive impact on the production of final plans that are more comprehensive, and do not require continuous changes during the planning process. The introduced use of the guideline will contribute to the limited number of studies, concerning the evaluation stage of the spatial plans in Türkiye, besides guiding the related possible legal regulations regarding the TP.
Metrics
References
Akçay, A. (2009). Kamuda stratejik plan amaçlarının gerçeklestirilmesine yönelik değerlendirme ve denetim modeli, TÜBAV Bilim Dergisi, 2(1). 82-98.
Akpınar, B., & Bayram, Ö. (2008). Genel ortaöğretimde yapılan öğretim planlarının okul müdürü ve öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi, Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(10), 121-145.
Akman, Ç., & İpek, E. (2019). Son dönemde yapılan değişiklikler çerçevesinde belediyelerde stratejik planlama süreci, Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 2(2), 359-373.
Alexander, E. R., & Faludi, A. (1989). Planning and plan implementation: Notes on evaluation criteria, Environment and Planning B Planning and Design, 16(2), 127-140.
Alexander, E. R. (2006). Evolution and status. Where is planning evaluation today and how did it get here? In: Alexander E.R. (Eds.). Evaluation in Planning: Evolution and Prospects. Aldershot: Ashgate, 3-16.
Alterman, R., & Hill, E. (1978). Implementation of urban land use plans, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 44(3), 274-285.
Aşgın, S., & Yaman, K. (2018). Türkiye’de Bakanlıkların stratejik plan uygulamalarında mevcut yapı ve sürecin değerlendirilmesi, International Journal of Academic Value Studies, 4(19), 449-466.
Ataöv, A. (2007). Planlamada sosyal bilimcinin değişen rolü: Toplumdan biri olmak, Metu Journal of The Faculty of Architecture, 24(1), 139-152.
Ayrancı, İ. (2013). Metropoliten alanlarda planlama - kentsel gelişimin yönetimi ilişkisi ve bir izleme değerlendirme model önerisi [Relation of planning-urban development management in metropolitan areas and a monitoring and evaluation model proposal]. PhD Thesis, İstanbul Technical Universtiy, İstanbul.
Bacău, S., Grădinar, S, R., & Hersperger, A, M. (2020). Spatial plans as relational data: Using social network analysis to assess consistency among Bucharest’s planning instruments, Land Use Policy, 92,104484.
Baer, W. C. (1997). General plan evaluation criteria: An approach to making better plans, Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(3), 329-344.
Baker, I., Peterson, A., Brown, G., & McAlpine, C. (2012). Local government response to the impacts of climate change: An evaluation of local climate adaptation plans, Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(2), 127-136.
Bassett, E., & Shandas, V. (2010). Innovation and climate action planning: Perspectives from municipal plans, Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(4), 435-450.
Bernstein, D. (2001). Local government measurement use to focus on performance and results, Evaluation and Program Planning, 24, 95-101.
Berke, P., Backhurst, M., Day, M., Ericksen, N., Laurian, L., Crawford, J., & Dixon, J. (2006). What makes plan implementation successful? An evaluation of local plans and implementation practices in New Zealand, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(4), 581-600.
Berke, P., & Godschalk, D. (2009). Searching for the good plan: A meta-analysis of plan quality studies, Journal of Planning Literature, 23(3), 227-40.
Brody, S. D., & Highfield, W. E. (2005). Does planning work? Testing the implementation of local environmental planning in Florida, Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), 159-175.
Brody, S. D., Highfield, W., & Carrasco, V. (2004). Measuring the collective planning capabilities of local jurisdictions to manage ecological systems in Southern Florida, Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(1), 33-50.
Bunnell, G., & Jepson Jr, E. J. (2011). The effect of mandated planning on plan quality: A fresh look at what makes “a good plan”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(4), 338-353.
Calkins, H.. (1979). The planning monitor: An accountability theory of plan evaluation, Environment and Planning A, 11(7), 745-758.
Camillus, J. C., & Datta, K. D. (1991). Managing strategic issues in a Turbulent Environment, Long Range Planning, 24(2), 67-74.
Carmona, M., & Sieh, L. (2008). Performance measurement in planning - Towards a holistic view, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(2), 428-454.
Connell, D. J., & Daoust-Filiatrault, L.-A. (2018). Better than good: Three dimensions of plan quality, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 38(3), 265-272.
Demirci, M. (2004). Kent planlamada uygulama anlayışına eleştirel bir yaklaşım: Dikmen Vadisi Projesi örneği [A Critical approach to the understanding of implementation in urban planning the case Dikmen valley project]. PhD Thesis, Ankara University, Social Sciences Institute, Ankara.
Değerli, B., & Erbaş, A. E. (2021). Bütünleşik kıyı alanları planları ve mekansal planlama ilişkisi, İzmit Körfezi ve Bursa İli örneği üzerinden bir değerlendirme, Journal of Awareness, 6(1), 1-11.
Ekiz, C., & Somel, A. (2005, Ocak). Türkiye’de planlama ve planlama anlayışının değişimi. Ankara Üniversitesi, Siyasi Bilimler Fakültesi, Geliştirme ve Toplum Araştırma Merkezi Tartışma Metinleri (SBF-GETA), 81, 1-38.
http://politics.ankara.edu.tr/dergi/tartisma/2005/anlayis-planlama.pdf.
Eraydın, A. (2017). Planlamada yeni eğilimler. In Özdemir, S. S., Sarı, Özdemir, B. Ö., & Uzun, N (Eds). Kent Planlama (pp.561-581). İmge Kitapevi Yayınları, Ankara,
Erdem, R., & Meşhur, Ç. (2005). İmar planları marifetiyle plansız gelişme. In Planlamada Yeni Politikalar ve Stratejiler, Riskler ve Fırsatlar Bildiriler Kitabı. 8 Kasım Dünya Şehircilik Günü 29.Kolokyumu, pp.339-344.
Ersoy, M. (2005). Türkiye’de kent planlamasının güncel sorunları [Current problems of urban planning in Türkiye]. In 9. Ulusal Halk Sağlığı Kongresi Bildiri Özet Kitabı, Ankara, Türkiye, 3-6 Kasım 2004, pp.137-144. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Halk Sağlığı Anabilim Dalı.
Ersoy, M. (2007). Planlama kuramına giriş [Introduction to planning theory]. In: Ersoy M. (Eds). Kentsel Planlama Kuramları. Ankara: İmge Yayınevi, pp.9-340.
Goggin, M., Bowman, A., Lester, J., & O'TooleJr, L. (1990). Implementation theory and practice: Toward a third generation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Little, Brown, p.230.
Gölbaşı, İ. (2014). Kentsel planlama deneyimlerinin plan başarı ölçütleri çerçevesinde karşılaştırılması ve değerlendirilmesi-İstanbul Örneği, Planlama Dergisi, 24(1), 18-25.
Güredin, E. (2000). Denetim, Beta Yayınları. 10. Basım, İstanbul.
Hoskara, Ş. (2020, Kasım). Dünya Şehircilik Günü Mesajı. 44. Dünya Şehircilik Günü Kolokyumunda sunulan bildiri, Ankara.
Hoch, C. (2007). How plan mandates work: Affordable housing in Illinois, Journal of the American planning Association, 73(1), 86-99.
Laurian, L., Day, M., Berke, P., Ericksen, N., Backhurst, M., Crawford, J., & Dixon, J. (2004). Evaluating plan implementation: A conformance-based methodology, Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(4), 471-480.
Laurian, L., Crawford, J., Maxine, D., Kouwenhoven, P., Mason, G., Ericksen, N., & Beattiem, L. (2010). Evaluating the outcomes of plans: Theory, practice and methodology, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(4), 740-757.
Lichfield, N., & Prat, A. (1998). Linking ex-ante and ex-post evaluation in British Town Planning. In N. Lichfield, A. Barbanente, D. Borri, A. Khakee, & A. Prat (Eds.). Evaluation in planning: Facing the challenge of complexity (pp. 283-298). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lichfield, N., Kettle, P., & Whitbread, M. (1975). The Urban and Regional Planning Series: Vol. 10. Evaluation in the Planning Process. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Lyles, W., & Stevens, M. (2014). Plan quality evaluation 1994–2012: Growth and contributions, limitations, and new directions, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(4), 433-450.
Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1989). Implementation and public policy. With a new postscript, Lanham, MD: The University Press of America, Inc.
Olazabal, M., Galarraga, I., Ford, J., Sainz De Murieta, E., & Lesnikowski, A. (2019). Are local climate adaptation policies credible? A conceptual and operational assessment framework, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 11(3), 277-296.
Norton, R. K. (2008). Using content analysis to evaluate local master plans and zoning codes, Land Use Policy, 25(3), 432-454.
Olazabal, M., & De Gopegui, M.R. (2021). Adaptation planning in large cities is unlikely to be effective, Landscape and Urban Planning, 206, 103974.
Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2008). Evaluation in urban planning: From theory to practice. In: Pinho P. and Oliveira V. (Eds.). Proceedings of CITTA 1st Annual Conference on Planning Research: Evaluation in Planning. Porto, Portugal: The Research Center for Territory, Transports and Environment, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, pp.31-49.
Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2010). Measuring success in planning: Developing and testing a methodology for planning evaluation, The Town Planning Review, 81(3), 307-332.
Öztürk, M. (2018). Mekânsal planların değerlendirilmesinde tutarlılık tespiti üzerine bir yöntem önerisi: Trabzon örneği [A methodology proposal for detecting consistencies in the evaluation of spatial plans: Case of Trabzon], MsSci Thesis, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
Öztürk Saka, M., & Erdoğan, A. (2021). Plan tutarlılıklarının testi için bir yöntem önerisi: Mekânsal planlar değerlendirme kılavuzu, DEÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(4), 1709-1735.
Öztürk Saka, M., & Erdoğan, A. (2022). Krizler İçin Plan mı (!)? Kriz Riskine Karşı Planlama mı? In: Akşit, A., Mercanoğlu, C., Alaydın, D., Çetinkaya, H., Yeni, G. & Karasüleymanoğlu, S. (Eds.). 8 Kasım Dünya Şehircilik Günü 44. Kolokyumu Bildiriler Kitabı. TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası Genel Merkezi, pp. 335-356.
Pickett, S. T., Cadenasso, M. L., & Grove, J. M. (2004). Resilient cities: Meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms, Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(4), 369-384.
Roeseler, W. G. (1982). Successful American urban plans. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Segura, S., & Pedregal, B. (2017). Monitoring and evaluation framework for spatial plans: A Spanish case study, Sustainability, 9(1706), 1-19.
Soria, A. J., & Valenzuela, L. M. (2013). A method for the evaluation of metropolitan planning: Application to the context in Spain, European Planning Studies, 21(6), 944-966.
Talen, E. (1996). After the plans: Methods to evaluate the implementation success of plans, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16(1), 79-91.
Tian, L., & Shen, T. (2007, September). Evaluation of plan implementation in the transitional China: A case of Guangzhou city master plan. 43rd ISOCARP Congress on Urban Trialogues: Co-productive ways to relate visioning and strategic urban projects konulu kongrede sunulan bildiri. Antwerp, Belgium.
http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/928.pdf.
Türk, E., & Erkan, G. H. (2018). Gömleğin her düğmesini yanlış iliklemek: Artvin Yusufeli zorunlu yeniden yerleştirme sürecinin eleştirel incelemesi, Planlama Dergisi, 28(2), 218-235.
Tong, Z., & Zhang, Q. (2016). Urban planning implementation evaluation: A multilevel fuzzy comprehensive evaluation approach, The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 10(1), 200-211.
TÜİK, 2020, Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Sonuçları Verisi
Üngüren, E., & Koç, T. S. (2015). İş sağlığı ve güvenliği uygulamaları performans değerlendirme ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması, SGD-Sosyal Güvenlik Dergisi, 5(2), 124-144.
Vullings, W., Vries. M., & Borman, L. (2007). Dealing with uncertainty in spatial planning. 10th AGILE International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Aalborg University, Denmark.
Yaman Galantini, Z. D. (2018). Sürdürülebilir kent planlama ve kentsel kalkınma için bir politika paradigması olarak kentsel dayanıklılık: İstanbul örneği [Urban resilience as a policy paradigm for sustainable urban planning and urban development: The case of Istanbul]. PhD Thesis, İstanbul Technical Universtiy, İstanbul.
Yıldız, F. (1995). İmar Bilgisi. Nobel Yayıncılık, Ankara, p.563.
Zoral, P., & Varol, Ç. (2016). Sürdürülebilirlik değerlendirmesi yaklaşımının mekansal planlama pratiğine uyarlanması: Türkiye için yeni bir öneri. In Seksen Sonrası Mekan ve Planlama, pp. 51-79.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
COPYRIGHT POLICY
1. The International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) open access articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license lets the author to share (copy and redistribute) his/her article in any medium or format.
2. ICONARP cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
The author must give appropriate credit, provide a link to ICONARP, and indicate if changes were made on the article. The author may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the ICONARP endorses the author or his/her use.
The author may not use the article for commercial purposes.
If the author remix, transform, or build upon the article, s/he may not distribute the modified material.
The author may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues.
The author may use the Article within his/her employer’s institution or company for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs.
3. The author authorizes the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) to exclusively publish online his/her Article, and to post his/her biography at the end of the article, and to use the articles.
4. The author agrees to the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) using any images from the Article on the cover of the Journal, and in any marketing material.
5. As the author, copyright in the Article remains in his/her name.
6. All papers should be submitted electronically. All submitted manuscripts must be original work that is not under submission at another journal or under consideration for publication in another form, such as a monograph or chapter of a book. Authors of submitted papers are obligated not to submit their paper for publication elsewhere until an editorial decision is rendered on their submission. Further, authors of accepted papers are prohibited from publishing the results in other publications that appear before the paper is published in the Journal.
ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning is an OAJ supported by 