A Framework Proposal for Plan Evaluation in the Context of Turkish Planning System
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2022.229Keywords:
Conformance-based approach, evaluation in planning, performance-based approach, plan evaluation framework, Turkish planning systemAbstract
This study aims to propose a framework for plan evaluation in the context of Turkish planning system’s structural characteristics. Within the scope of the study, main planning evaluation approaches (conformance-based and performance-based) were examined, and prominent evaluation methods were analyzed in detail. Then, type of planning systems and the major breaking points in changing process of planning system in Turkey are summarized. With reference to these issues, a filtered framework that can be used for plan evaluation in Turkey has been suggested. In this research, it has been concluded that the plan evaluation can be realized in three main dimensions and some sub-criteria: conformity (plan and output accordance, plan effects, relevance), rationality (internal coherence, external coherence, participation, cooperation and coordination), utilisation (guidance or direction). Although it provides an applicable framework, the suggestion does not offer a method that can be applied one-to-one for each plan. Under the rapidly changing conditions in our country, the evaluation criterion should be reconfigured in line with the features of relevant plan. It is foreseen that a basic monitoring mechanism can be created for planning institution by using the framework in this study. Also, it will provide self-evaluation opportunities for planning authorities. In this way, we believe that the success level of plans and planning system will increase. Evaluation of plan is an important research area in the international literature in terms of both qualitative and quantitative elements to be analyzed together. However, it is not yet included in Turkish planning literature. Therefore, this study is valuable as it highlights a new research area by pointing to an important gap in the national planning literature. It is thought that this study has original contributions to both theory and practice and will establish a functional bridge between them.
Metrics
References
Sayılı İmar Kanunu. (1985). T.C. Resmi Gazete, 18749, 9 Mayıs 1985.
Sayılı Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı’nın Teşkilat ve Görevleri Hakkında Kanun Hükmünde Kararname. (2011). T.C. Resmi Gazete, 27984, 4 Temmuz 2011.
Alexander, E. R. (2009). Dilemmas in evaluating planning, or back to basics: What is planning for? Planning Theory & Practice, 10(2), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350902884177
Alexander, E. R. (2006). Problems and prospects: dilemmas in evaluation and directions for the future. E. R. Alexander (Ed.), in Evaluation in planning: Evolution and prospects (1. Edition, pp. 267–276). Routledge.
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. https://doi.org/10.1068/b160127
Allmendinger, P., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2002). The communicative turn in urban planning: Unrevalling paradigmatic, imperialistic and moralistic dimensions. Space & Polity, 6(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562570220137871
Barrett, S. M. (2004). Implementation studies: time for a revival? Personal reflections on 20 years of implementation studies. Public Administration, 82(2), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2004.00393.x
Barrett, S., & Fudge, C. (1981). Policy and action: essays on the implementation of public policy. Methuen.
Berke, P., Backhurst, M., Laurian, L., Crawford, J., Day, M., Ericksen, N., & Dixon, J. (2006). What makes plan implementation successfull? An evaluation of local plans and implementation practices in New Zealand, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(4), 581–600. https://doi.org/10.1068/b31166
Berke, P.R., & Conroy, M. M. (2000). Are we planning for sustainable development? An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360008976081
Boratav, K. (2015). Türkiye iktisat tarihi: 1908-2009 (21. Baskı). İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
Brody, S. D., Highfield, W. E., & Thornton, S. (2006). Planning at the urban fringe: An examination of the factors influencing nonconforming development patterns in southern Florida. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(1), 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1068/b31093
Büyükcivelek, A. B. (2022). Olmak ya da olmamak: Türkiye’de mekânsal planlamanın toplumsal meşruiyetine ilişkin bir tartışma, in 9. Türkiye Şehircilik Kongresi: Planlamanın birikimi, zemini ve ufku (pp. 118–137). TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası Yayınları.
Cumhurbaşkanlığı Teşkilatı Hakkında Cumhurbaşkanlığı Kararnamesi-1. (2018). T. C. Resmi Gazete, 30474, 10 Temmuz 2018.
Dinçer, İ. (2022). Planlamanın zemini için yeniden düşünmek, in 9. Türkiye Şehircilik Kongresi: Planlamanın birikimi, zemini ve ufku (pp. 45–51). TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası Yayınları.
Duyguluer, F. (2006). İmar mevzuatının kayıpları. Planlama Dergisi, 4, 27–37.
Duyguluer, F. (2014). İmar (sürecinin yeni) araçları. Mimarlık Dergisi, 375.
Enlil, Z., Dinçer, İ., & Can Çetin, B. (2020). Planlamada müdahale, regülasyon ve yatırım ikilemleri: İstanbul üzerinden bir değerlendirme. İ. Dinçer, & Z. Enlil (Eds.), in Hüseyin Kaptan’a armağan: Kent planlama (pp. 69–84). YEM Yayın.
Eraydın, A. (2006). Mekansal süreçlere toplu bakış. A. Eraydın (Ed.), in Değişen mekan-mekansal süreçlere ilişkin tartışma ve araştırmalara toplu bakış: 1923-2003 (pp. 25–67). Dost Kitabevi.
Eraydın, A. (2017). Planlamada yeni eğilimler. S. S. Özdemir, Ö. B. Özdemir Sarı, & N. Uzun (Eds.), in Kent planlama (pp. 561–581). İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
Ersoy, M. (2000). İmar planlarının kademelenmesi ve farklı ölçeklerdeki planlar arasındaki ilişki. M. Ersoy, & Ç. Keskinok (Eds.), in Mekan planlama ve yargı denetimi (pp. 6–43). Yargı Yayınevi.
Ersoy, M. (Ed.). (2016a). Kentsel planlama kuramları (3. baskı). İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
Ersoy, M. (2016b). Planlamada kademeli birliktelik ilkesi ve plan kademeleri. M. Ersoy (Ed.), in Kentsel planlama ansiklopedik sözlük (2. baskı, pp. 360–363). Ninova Yayınları.
Faludi, A. (1989). Conformance vs. performance: Implications for evaluation. Impact Assessment, 7(2-3), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/07349165.1989.9726017
Faludi, A. (2000). The performance of spatial planning. Planning Practice and Research, 15(4), 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/713691907
Gedikli, B. (2016a). Stratejik mekânsal planlama: Planlamada yeni anlayışlar, yöntemler ve teknikler. M. Ersoy (Ed.), in Kentsel planlama kuramları (3. baskı, pp. 237–290). İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
Gedikli, B. (2016b). İletişimsel akılcılık. M. Ersoy (Ed.), in Kentsel planlama ansiklopedik sözlük (2. baskı, pp. 159–160). Ninova Yayınları.
He, J. (2015). Evaluation of plan implementation: Peri-urban development and the Shangai Master Plan 1999-2020 [Doctoral Thesis, Delft University of Technology]. A+BE: Architecture and the Built Environment.
Kahraman, T. (2021). İstisna mekan: Hukukun eşiğindeki kent. Tekin Yayınevi.
Kılınç, N. & Turk, Ş. Ş. (2018). Hybridisation in planning systems and its effects on legal sources: Turkish case. AESOP Congress 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Laurian, L., Crawford, J.B., Day, M., Kouwenhoven, P., Mason, G.C., Ericksen, N.J., & Beattie, L. (2010). Evaluating the outcomes of plans: Theory, practice, and methodology. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(4), 740–757. https://doi.org/10.1068/b35051
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360408976395
Loh, C. G. (2011). Assessing and interpreting non-conformance in land-use planning implementation. Planning Practice and Research, 26(3), 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2011.580111
Lyles, W., Berke, P., & Smith, G. (2016). Local plan implementation: Assessing conformance and influence of local plans in the United States. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(2), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813515604071
Mastop, H., & Faludi, A. (1997). Evaluation of strategic plans: the performance principle. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24(6), 815–832. https://doi.org/10.1068/b240815
Mekansal Planlar Yapım Yönetmeliği. (2014). T.C. Resmi Gazete, 29030, 14 Haziran 2014.
Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2009). Evaluating plans, processes and results. Planning Theory & Practices, 10(1), 35–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350802661741
Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2010). Evaluation in urban planning: Advances and prospects. Journal of Planning Literature, 24(4), 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412210364589
Ozkan, H. A., & Turk, S. S. (2016). Emergence, formation and outcomes of flexibility in Turkish planning practice. International Development Planning Review, 38(1), 25–53. https://doi.org/10.3828/idpr.2016.2
Öktem, B. (2006). Neoliberal küreselleşmenin kentlerde inşası: AKP’nin küresel kent söylemi ve İstanbul’un kentsel dönüşüm projeleri. Planlama Dergisi, 2(36), 53–63.
Özdemir Sönmez, F. N. (2017). Planlamada yeni yasal düzenlemeler. S. S. Özdemir, Ö. B. Özdemir Sarı, & N. Uzun (Eds.), in Kent planlama (pp. 643–665). İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
Özden, P. P. (2013). Üst ölçekli planlamadan projeci yaklaşıma planlamanın değişen yüzü. K. Eyüpgiller, & Z. Eres (Eds.), in Mimari ve kentsel koruma / Prof. Dr. Nur Akın’a armağan (pp. 435–455). YEM Yayın.
Rivolin, U. J. (2008). Conforming and performing planning systems in Europe: An unbearable cohabitation. Planning Practice & Research, 23(2), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450802327081
Sezgin, E. & Erkut, G. (2020). Kalkınma ajansları ve Türkiye mekansal planlama sisteminin dönüşümü. İ. Dinçer, & Z. Enlil (Eds.), in Hüseyin Kaptan’a armağan: Kent planlama (pp. 149–168). YEM Yayın.
Silva, E. A. & Acheampong, R. A. (2015). Developing and inventory and typology of land-use planning systems and policy instruments in OECD countries. OECD Environment Working Paper, No. 94.
Steele, W. & Ruming, K. J. (2012). Flexibility versus certainty: Unsettling the land use planning shibboleth in Australia. Planning Practice & Research, 27(2), 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.662670
Talen, E. (1997). Success, failure, and conformance: An alternative approach to planning evaluation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24(4), 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1068/b240573
Tarakçı, S. & Türk, Ş. Ş. (2020). Shaping of flexibility in urban renewal legal sources in Turkey and its effect on practices. International Journal of Architecture and Planning, 8(2), 652–671. https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2020.131
Tarakçı, S. & Türk, Ş. Ş. (2021). Kentsel yenileme ile ilgili yasal düzenlemelerde takdir yetkisinden gelen esneklikler. Planlama Dergisi, 31(3), 414–427.
Uzun, N. (2017). Kentsel yenileme ve dönüşüm. S. S. Özdemir, Ö. B. Özdemir Sarı, & N. Uzun (Eds.), in Kent planlama (pp. 583–600). İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
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 