Importance of indicators in sustainable urban transformation: The Bağcılar (Istanbul) sustainability index experience

Authors

  • Sezen Tarakçı image/svg+xml Istanbul Kent University

    Sezen Tarakçı is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Urban Design and Landscape Architecture at Istanbul Kent University. She completed her undergraduate studies in City and Regional Planning at Istanbul Technical University. Her doctoral thesis, titled “A Methodological Proposal for Capturing Land Value Increment for the Public in Urban Renewal Areas: The Case of Fikirtepe,” completed at Istanbul Technical University, was awarded the ITU Best Thesis Award. Her research focuses on the legal and administrative issues of urban areas, urban transformation practices, and public value capture. Additionally, she has served as a researcher on the TÜBİTAK 3501-supported project titled “Sustainable Development and Transformation Model for Manufacturing Industry Zones in Cities: The Case of Bağcılar District, Istanbul.

  • Gülşen Pelin Olcay image/svg+xml Istanbul Kent University

    G. Pelin Olcay completed her bachelor's degree in the Department of City and Regional Planning at Istanbul Technical University. She earned a master's degree from the Regional Planning Program at Istanbul Technical University with a thesis titled “The Industrialization Dynamics of the Thrace Region and the Çorlu Industrial Clusters.” Olcay also obtained a Ph.D. from the City and Regional Planning Program at Istanbul Technical University with a dissertation titled “Developments and Impacts in the Geography of the International Supply Chain in the Ready-to-Wear Sector.”Her areas of expertise includes local and regional development, industrial clusters, the development and planning of industrial areas, and the transformation of industrial zones. Olcay is currently a faculty member at Istanbul City University’s Faculty of Art and Design, Department of Urban Design and Landscape Architecture. She also serves as the principal investigator of the project titled “A Sustainable Development and Transformation Model for Urban Manufacturing Areas: The Case of Bağcılar District in Istanbul,” which has been granted funding under the TUBİTAK 3501 program.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2024.v5i3135

Keywords:

data analytics, urban transformation, Sustainable urban planning, sustainability

Abstract

Sustainable urban transformation practices play a critical role in implementing the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainable development in cities. Sustainability indices are important parameters for achieving sustainable development goals. The use of these indices supports the making of strategic decisions for the future of cities, such as in urban transformation practices. Indicators and data are defined as vital tools for evaluating the success of sustainability policies and monitoring the economic, environmental, and social performance of cities. Establishing more comprehensive and accessible data collection systems at the local level and effectively sharing this data is crucial for developing policies based on these indices. This study aims to emphasize the critical importance of sustainable urban transformation practices in relation to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by showcasing the experiences gained during the development of a Sustainability Index for Bağcılar, a densely urbanized district in Istanbul. Bağcılar offers an important area of study in terms of sustainability with its dynamics such as rapid population growth, dense construction and socio-economic differences. Planning urban transformation projects within the framework of sustainability principles is a strategic necessity for Istanbul and similar metropolitan cities. By establishing a system that tracks regular, reliable, and internationally standardized data, it will be possible to create measurable, reportable, and comparable targets for sustainable urban transformation practices. However, in developing countries like Turkey, deficiencies in data collection and analysis processes make it difficult to achieve sustainability goals. This study suggests that improving data collection processes and increasing transparency are fundamental steps to ensuring sustainable urban transformation.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  • Ay, S. (2017). Sürdürülebilir Kalkınmayı Ölçmek: Türkiye Üzerıne Bır Değerlendırme. Paradoks Ekonomi, Sosyoloji ve Politika Dergisi, 13(1), 85-100.
  • Ayık, C., Ayataç, H., & Sertyeşilışık, B. (2021). Türkiye’de Sürdürülebilir Kentleşmenin Ölçülebilmesi İçin Yeni Bir Endeks Model Önerisi. İdealkent Dergisi, 12(32), 385-414.
  • Bağcılar Belediyesi. (2008). Bağcılar ilçesi revizyon nazım imar planı raporu. İstanbul: Bağcılar Belediyesi.
  • Balaban, O. (2012). The negative effects of construction boom on urban planning and environment in Turkey: Unraveling the role of the public sector. Habitat International, 36(1), 26-35.
  • Cappai, F., Forgues, D., & Glaus, M. (2019). A methodological approach for evaluating brownfield redevelopment projects. Urban Sci, 3(45), 1-21.
  • Dizdaroğlu, D. (2017). The role of indicator-based sustainability assessment in policy and the decision-making process: A review and outlook. Sustainability, 9(6), 1-20.
  • Gavaldà, O., Gibbs, C., & Eicker, U. (2023). A review of current evaluation urban sustainability indicator frameworks and a proposal for improvement. Sustainability, 15(21), 1-22.
  • Genç, F. N. (2014). Gecekonduyla mücadeleden kentsel dönüşüme Türkiye’de kentleşme politikaları. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(1), 15-30.
  • Hemphill, L., Berry, J., & McGreal, S. (2004). An indicator-based approach to measuring sustainable urban regeneration performance: Part 1, conceptual foundation and methodologial framework”. Urban Studies, 41(4), 725-755.
  • Hiremath, R., Balachandra, P., Kumar, B., Bansode, S., & Murali, J. (2013). Indicator-based urban sustainability-A review. Energy for Sustainable Development, 13, 555-563.
  • Huang, L., Wu, J., & Yan, L. (2015). Defining and measuring urban sustainability: A review of indicators. Landscape Ecol, 30, 1175-1193.
  • Karaman, O. (2013). Urban renewal in Istanbul: Reconfigured spaces, robotic lives. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(2), 715-733.
  • Kazmierczak, E. A., Curwell, S. R., & Turner, J. C. (2007). Assessment methods and tools for regeneration of large urban distressed areas. International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and its Assessment. Glasgow.
  • Klopp, J., & Petretta, D. (2017). The urban sustainable development goal: Indicators, complexity and the politics of measuring cities. Cities, 63, 92-97.
  • Kocabaş, A. (2005). The emergence of istanbul’s fifth urban planning period: A transition to planning for sustainable urban regeneration. Journal of Urban Technology, 12(2), 27-48.
  • Kuyucu, T. (2018). Türkiye’de kentsel dönüşümün dönüşümü: Hukuki ve kurumsal çatışmalar üzerinden bir açıklama denemesi. İdealkent, 24(9), 364-386.
  • Kuyucu, T., & Ünsal, Ö. (2010). 'Urban transformation' as state-led property transfer: An analysis of two cases of urban renewal in Istanbul. Urban Syudies, 47(7), 1479-1499.
  • Marmara Belediyeler Birliği. (2022). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma amaçlarının yerelleşmesi Marmara Bölgesi örneği. İstanbul: Marmara Belediyeler Birliği Kültür Yayınları.
  • Michael, F. L., Noor, Z. Z., & Figueroa, M. J. (2014). Review of urban sustainability indicators assessment-Case study between Asian countries. Habitat International, 44, 491-500.
  • Olcay, G. P., & Nurtekin , H. G. (2020). İstanbul basın ekspres aksının gelişme ve dönüşme dinamikleri. Planlama Dergisi, 30, 404-420.
  • Olcay , G. P., & Tarakçı, S. (2021). İmalat alanlarının dönüşümünde bir araç olarak sürdürülebilirlik indeksi. Ü. B. Karaca içinde, Mimarlık-Şehircilik ve Çevre Sorunları-Prof. Dr. Yıldız SEY'e Armağan (s. 197-216). İstanbul: Hiperyayın.
  • Özcan, K. (2016). Kent planlamada sürdürülebilirlik gündemi: Bir kavramsallaştırma denemesi. Avrasya Terim Dergisi, 4(2), 7-17.
  • Penpecioglu, M. (2013). Urban development projects and the construction of neo-liberal urban hegemony: The case of İzmir. METU JFA, 30(1), 165-189.
  • Sakızlıoğlu, B. (2014). Insertıng temporalıty into the analysis of displacement: Living under the threat of displacement. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 105(2), 206-220. doi:10.1111/tesg.12051
  • Samut, P. (2014). İki aşamalı çok kriterli karar verme ile performans değerlendirmesi: AHP ve TOPSIS yöntemlerinin entegrasyonu. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(4), 57-68.
  • Sarp, G., Temurçin, K., & Aldırmaz, Y. (2019). Kentin hücresel boyutu: Bağcılar (İstanbul) üzerine bir deneme. Coğrafya Dergisi, 39, 99-109.
  • Şen, B., & Öktem Ünsal, B. (2014). Derbent-memeleketin işçi mahallesi ya da küresel kentin "hukuksuz" gecekondu alanı. A. Türkün içinde, Mülk, Mahal, İnsan - İstanbul'da Kentsel Dönüşüm (s. 189-225). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Tarakçı, S., & Olcay, G. P. (2022). Dönüşüm sürecindeki imalat alanlarında dönüşemeyen mekanlar: Bağcılar-basın ekspres aksı örneği. 8 Kasım Dünya Şehircilik Günü 46. Kolokyumu, Toplumda ve Mekanda Adalet (s. 610-633). Eskişehir: TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası.
  • Tarakçı, S., & Türk, Ş. Ş. (2020). Shaping of flexibility in urban renewal legal sources in Turkey and its effect on practices. ICONARP International Journal of Architecture & Planning, 8(2), 652-671.
  • T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı. (2024). On ikinci kalkınma planı (2024-2028). Ankara: T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı.
  • Topala, A., Yalman, G. L., & Çelik, Ö. (2019). Changing modalities of urban redevelopment and housing finance in Turkey: Three mass housing projects in Ankara. Journal of Urban Affairs, 41(5), 630-653.
  • Tuğaç, Ç. (2018). Uluslararası sürdürülebilir kent ölçütleri bağlamında türkiye için bir değerlendirme. Kent Akademisi, 11(4), 703-740.
  • Ulubaş Hamurcu, A., & Aysan Buldurur, M. (2017). Sürdürülebilir kentsel dönüşüm için performans. Planlama, 27(3), 222-235.
  • UN. (2019). Sustainable development goals. Retrived from 12.01.2019 https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment
  • Verma, P., & Raghubanshi, A. (2018). Urban sustainability indicators: Challenges and opportunities. Ecological Indicators, 93, 282-291.
  • Williams, K., & Dair, C. (2007). A framework for assessing the sustainability of brownfield developments. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(1), 23-40.
  • Yıkmaz, R. (2011). Sürdürülebilir kalkınmanın ölçülmesi ve türkiye için yöntem geliştirilmesi. Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı.
  • Zheng, H., Shen, G., & Wang, H. (2014). A review of recent studies on sustainable urban renewal. Habitat International, 41, 272-279.
  • Zheng, W., Shen, G., Sun, B., & Hong, J. (2016). An indicator-based approach to neighbourhood sustainability assessment for urban renewal decision-making.

Downloads

  • PDF
    • | Abstract Views 118 | PDF Downloads 73

Published

2024-12-29

How to Cite

Tarakçı, S., & Olcay, G. P. (2024). Importance of indicators in sustainable urban transformation: The Bağcılar (Istanbul) sustainability index experience. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, 5(3), 327–341. https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2024.v5i3135

Issue

Vol. 5 No. 3 (2024)

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Sezen Tarakçı, G. Pelin Olcay

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Funding data