SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Iğdır Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 14

Enhancing Accessibility in Urban Water Management through Digital Solutions from a Participation and Governance Perspective in the Context of Climate Change: Case Studies of Paris and Berlin

İklim Değişikliği Çerçevesinde Katılım ve Yönetişim Perspektifinden Dijital Çözümlerle Kentsel Su Yönetiminin Erişilebilirliğinin Artırılması: Paris ve Berlin Örnekleri

Eda Kaya(DÜZCE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ORMAN FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-4539-1685
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that digital applications not only improve technical efficiency but also support active public participation in water management by making governance processes more transparent and accessible.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Climate change, increasing population, and urbanization pressures are making the sustainable management of urban water resources increasingly critical.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The limitations of traditional water management models have increased the need for more transparent, inclusive, and multi-stakeholder governance structures.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that digital applications not only improve technical efficiency but also support active public participation in water management by making governance processes more transparent and accessible.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kentsel su yönetimi · dijital çözümler · iklim değişikliği

Abstract

Climate change, increasing population, and urbanization pressures are making the sustainable management of urban water resources increasingly critical. In this process, not only technical solutions but also approaches that place participation, governance, and inclusiveness at their core are gaining importance. The limitations of traditional water management models have increased the need for more transparent, inclusive, and multi-stakeholder governance structures. Digital solutions, in addition to supporting data-driven decision-making processes, have the potential to strengthen participatory governance by facilitating the involvement of different stakeholders in management processes. These tools enhance citizens’ access to water management processes, improve access to information, and increase public awareness. At the same time, these approaches contribute to more inclusive and sustainable urban governance in alignment with the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals. This study examines how digital solutions encourage participation and participatory governance in urban water management through case analyses conducted in Paris and Berlin. In this research, document analysis was used as the data collection and evaluation method, and a comprehensive literature review was conducted on the subject. The findings indicate that digital applications not only improve technical efficiency but also support active public participation in water management by making governance processes more transparent and accessible. Within the scope of this study, raising awareness of proper and conscious water use was aimed; and several policy recommendations were developed regarding the institutional applicability of sustainable urban water management in relation to existing and planned water resources.

Özet

İklim değişikliği, artan nüfus ve kentleşme baskısı, kentsel su kaynaklarının sürdürülebilir yönetimini giderek daha kritik bir hale getirmektedir. Bu süreçte yalnızca teknik çözümler değil, aynı zamanda katılım, yönetişim ve katılımcılık ilkelerini merkeze alan yaklaşımlar da önem kazanmaktadır. Geleneksel su yönetimi modellerinin sınırlılıkları, daha şeffaf, kapsayıcı ve çok paydaşlı yönetişim yapılarına olan ihtiyacı artırmaktadır. Dijital çözümler, veri temelli karar alma süreçlerini desteklemenin yanı sıra, farklı paydaşların yönetime katılımını kolaylaştırarak katılımcı yönetişim anlayışını güçlendirme potansiyeline sahiptir. Bu araçlar, vatandaşların su yönetimi süreçlerine erişimini artırmakta, bilgiye ulaşımı kolaylaştırmakta ve kamuoyu farkındalığını geliştirmektedir. Aynı zamanda bu yaklaşımlar, Birleşmiş Milletler Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amaçları ile uyumlu olarak daha kapsayıcı ve sürdürülebilir kent yönetimlerine katkı sunmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Paris ve Berlin örnekleri üzerinden yürütülen vaka analizleri aracılığıyla, dijital çözümlerin kentsel su yönetiminde katılımı ve katılımcılığı nasıl teşvik ettiğini incelemektedir. Bu araştırmada, veri toplama ve değerlendirme sürecinde doküman analizi yöntemi kullanılmış ve konuya ilişkin kapsamlı bir literatür taraması yapılmıştır. Bulgular, dijital uygulamaların yalnızca teknik verimliliği artırmakla kalmayıp, aynı zamanda yönetişim süreçlerini daha şeffaf ve erişilebilir hale getirerek toplumun su yönetimine aktif katılımını desteklediğini göstermektedir. Bu çalışma kapsamında, doğru ve bilinçli su kullanımına yönelik farkındalığın artırılması hedeflenmiş; mevcut ve planlanan su kaynakları bağlamında sürdürülebilir kentsel su yönetiminin kurumsal düzeyde uygulanabilirliğine ilişkin çeşitli çözüm önerileri ortaya konmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kaya, E. (2026). Enhancing Accessibility in Urban Water Management through Digital Solutions from a Participation and Governance Perspective in the Context of Climate Change: Case Studies of Paris and Berlin. Iğdır Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı: 14. https://doi.org/10.58618/igdiriibf.1942938

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (46)

  1. Akal Solmaz, S. K., Yalılı Kılıç, M., & Üstün, G. E. (2011, November 17–20). Bursa ili su kaynaklarının mevcut durumunun değerlendirilmesi. In 1. Kıyı Bölgelerinde Çevre Kirliliği ve Kontrolü, Tekirdağ, Türkiye.
  2. Araujo, R. S., Alves, M. G., Melo, M. T. C., Chrispim, Z. M. P., Mendes, M. P., & Junior, G. G. S. (2015). Water resource management: A comparative evaluation of Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, the European Union, and Portugal. Science of the Total Environment, 511, 815–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.11.098
  3. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
  4. Bendz, A., & Boholm, Å. (2020). Indispensable, yet invisible: Drinking water management as a local political issue in Swedish municipalities. Local Government Studies, 46(5), 800–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2020.1761244
  5. Bressers, H., Bressers, N., Larrue, C., & Kuks, S. (2016). The governance assessment tool and its use. In H. Bressers, N. Bressers, & C. Larrue (Eds.), Governance for drought resilience: Land and water drought management in Europe (pp. 45–65). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29669-2_3
  6. Bloomfield, D., Collins, K., Fry, C., & Munton, R. (2001). Deliberation and inclusion: Vehicles for increasing trust in UK public governance? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19(4), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0102
  7. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  8. Bouleau, G., Barbier, R., Halm-Lemeille, M.-P., Tassin, B., Buchs, A., & Habets, F. (2020). Despite great expectations in the Seine River Basin, the WFD did not reduce diffuse pollution. Water Alternatives, 13(3), 534–555.
  9. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  10. Devlet Su İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü. (2025, 3 Aralık). DSİ’nin geliştirdiği yazılımla taşkın zararları azaltılacak. Devlet Su İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü. https://www.dsi.gov.tr/Haber/Detay/16563
  11. Devlet Su İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü. (2026). İçmesuyu ve Atıksu Dairesi Başkanlığı. Devlet Su İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü. https://www.dsi.gov.tr/Sayfa/Detay/699
  12. Elelman, R., Wencki, K., Chen, A. S., Englund, A., & Anzaldua, G. (2021). The need for digital water in a green Europe: EU H2020 projects’ contribution to the implementation and strengthening of EU environmental policy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
  13. Eggimann, S., Mutzner, L., Wani, O., Schneider, M. Y., Spuhler, D., Moy de Vitry, M., Beutler, P., & Maurer, M. (2017). The potential of knowing more: A review of data-driven urban water management. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(5), 2538–2553. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04267 Esmail, B. A., & Suleiman, L. (2020). Analyzing evidence of sustainable urban water management systems: A review through the lenses of sociotechnical transitions. Sustainability, 12(11), 4481. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114481
  14. Few, R., Brown, K., & Tompkins, E. L. (2007). Public participation and climate change adaptation: Avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate Policy, 7(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2007.9685637
  15. Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE.
  16. Furlong, K. (2011). Small technologies, big change: Rethinking infrastructure through STS and geography. Progress in Human Geography, 35(4), 460–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510374118
  17. Gao, H., Wei, T., Lou, I., Yang, Z., Shen, Z., & Li, Y. (2014). Water saving effect on integrated resource management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 93, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.09.009
  18. Graham, S. (2009). When infrastructures fail. In S. Graham (Ed.), Disrupted cities: When infrastructure fails (pp. 1–26). London, UK: Routledge.
  19. Hart, G. P. (2002). Disabling globalization: Places of power in post-apartheid South Africa. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  20. Hoek, J. P. van der, Fooij, H., Struker, A. (2016). Wastewater as a resource: Strategies to recover resources from Amsterdam’s wastewater. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 113, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.05.012
  21. Hurlbert, M., & Gupta, J. (2015). The split ladder of participation: A diagnostic, strategic, and evaluation tool to assess when participation is necessary. Environmental Science & Policy, 50, 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.011
  22. International Water Resources Association. (2021). Smart water cities project – Phase 1 report. International Water Resources Association.
  23. İstanbul İl Tarım ve Orman Müdürlüğü. (2026, 13 Mayıs). İstanbul İl Su Kurulu toplantısı gerçekleştirildi. https://istanbul.tarimorman.gov.tr/Haber/3110/Istanbul-Il-Su-Kurulu-Toplantisi-Gerceklestirildi
  24. Knoblauch, D., Felicetti, L., & Stein, U. (2020). Policy matrix: Screening of digital, data and water policies. (Report). Water Policy Association.
  25. Knoblauch, D., Stein, U., Bueb, B., Bouleau, G., vd. (2023). Making Urban Water Management Tangible for the Public by Means of Digital Solutions. Sustainability, 15(2), 1280. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021280
  26. Larsen, T. A., & Gujer, W. (1997). The concept of sustainable urban water management. Water Science and Technology, 35(9), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(97)00248-7
  27. Lefebvre, F. (2022). La politique de mise en conformité des branchements d’assainissement (Master’s thesis). Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France.
  28. Liu, A., & Mukheibir, P. (2018). Digital metering feedback and changes in water consumption—A review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 134, 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.02.009
  29. Manny, L. (2022). Socio-technical challenges towards data-driven and integrated urban water management: A socio-technical network approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 90, 104360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104360
  30. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  31. Moglia, M., Cook, S., & Tapsuwan, S. (2018). Promoting water conservation: Where to from here? Water, 10(11), 1510. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10111510
  32. Ramos, H. M., McNabola, A., López-Jiménez, P. A., & Pérez-Sánchez, M. (2020). Smart water management towards future water sustainable networks. Water, 12(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010058
  33. Petitimbert, R., Bouleau, G., & Guimont, C. (2022). (Re)politicization of climate change mitigating projects: Environmental forms and motives of the Seine Nord Europe Canal. European Journal of Futures Research, 10, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-022-00193-5
  34. Petroulias, N., Foufeas, D., & Bougoulia, E. (2016). Estimating water losses and assessing network management intervention scenarios: The case study of the water utility of the city of Drama in Greece. Procedia Engineering, 162, 559–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.11.101
  35. Romano, O., & Akhmouch, A. (2019). Water governance in cities: Current trends and future challenges. Water, 11(3), 500. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030500
  36. Ross, A. (2017). Speeding the transition towards integrated groundwater and surface water management in Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 567, e1–e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.01.037
  37. Rygaard, M., Godskesen, B., Jørgensen, C., & Hoffmann, B. (2014). Holistic assessment of a secondary water supply for a new development in Copenhagen, Denmark. Science of the Total Environment, 497–498, 430–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.07.078
  38. Senatsverwaltung für Umwelt, Mobilität, Verbraucher- und Klimaschutz. (2022). Masterplan Wasser Berlin: 1. Bericht. Berlin, Germany.
  39. Slota, S. C., & Bowker, G. C. (2017). How infrastructures matter. In U. Felt, R. Fouché, C. A. Miller, & L. Smith-Doerr (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (4th ed., pp. 529–554). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  40. Singh, M., & Ahmed, S. (2020). IoT based smart water management systems: A systematic review. Materials Today: Proceedings, 46, 5211–5218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.08.285
  41. Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111–134. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.7.1.111
  42. Stein, U., Bueb, B., Englund, A., Elelman, R., Amorsi, N., Lombardo, F., Corchero, A., Brékine, A., López Aguilar, F., et al. (2022). Digitalisation in the water sector: Recommendations for policy developments at EU level. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
  43. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı. (2026, 16 Mart). Ulusal Su Planı (2026–2035), 11063 sayılı Cumhurbaşkanlığı Kararı ile 14 Mart 2026 tarihli ve 33196 sayılı Resmî Gazete’de yayımlandı. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı, Su Yönetimi Genel Müdürlüğü. https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/SYGM/Haber/1362/Ulusal-Su-Plani-_2026%E2%80%932035_-11063-Sayili-Cumhurbaskanligi-Karari-Ile-14-Mart-2026-Tarihli-Ve-33196-Sayili-Resm%C3%AE-Gazetede-Yayimlandi
  44. Yalılı, M., Akal Solmaz, S. K., & Kestioğlu, K. (2006). Bursa ili su kaynakları potansiyeli ve su kullanıcı faktörü. Uludağ University Journal of The Faculty of Engineering, 11(2), 1–13.
  45. Yalılı Kılıç, M., Akal Solmaz, S. K., & Çiner, F. (2013, March 22–24). Kentsel su yönetiminde su kullanıcısının önemi. In 3. Uluslararası Bursa Su Kongresi, Bursa, Türkiye.
  46. Wilcox, D. (1994). Community Participation and Empowerment: Putting Theory into Practice. RRA Notes, 21, 78–