SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İDEALKENT / 2026 / Sayı: 51

Participation in urban planning at the intersection of theory, technology and policy: A conceptual assessment through the Turkish case

Kuram, teknoloji ve politikanın kesişiminde kent planlamaya katılım: Türkiye üzerinden kavramsal bir değerlendirme

Hazal İrem Göğüş Gülser(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0002-3224-1733
Zeynep Aslı Gürel(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4811-1207
Journal
İDEALKENT
Pages
1–19
Publication Date
2026-10-18
🏛️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 study therefore proposes an integrated three-axis framework for evaluating urban participation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Although the number of empirical studies evaluating digital urban participation platforms has grown rapidly, the literature still lacks an integrated account of the theoretical, technological, and policy foundations underpinning these platforms.This paper offers a conceptual review of urban participation along three complementary dimensions in the Turkish context: (a) theoretical foundations ranging from democratic theory to Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation; (b) technological transformation from the industrial revolutions to Society 5.0, including big data, artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, and digital platforms; and (c) the policy frameworks linking international instruments with Türkiye’s legal and institutional framework.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The Turkish case illustrates this mismatch: constitutional and legal recognition, together with expanding digital infrastructure, has not consistently translated into participation at the levels of partnership and citizen power.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study therefore proposes an integrated three-axis framework for evaluating urban participation.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kentsel katılım · Toplum 5.0 · katılım merdiveni

Abstract

Although the number of empirical studies evaluating digital urban participation platforms has grown rapidly, the literature still lacks an integrated account of the theoretical, technological, and policy foundations underpinning these platforms.This paper offers a conceptual review of urban participation along three complementary dimensions in the Turkish context: (a) theoretical foundations ranging from democratic theory to Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation; (b) technological transformation from the industrial revolutions to Society 5.0, including big data, artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, and digital platforms; and (c) the policy frameworks linking international instruments with Türkiye’s legal and institutional framework. The paper also relates the shift from modernist rational planning to communicative planning, agonistic democracy, and non-representational approaches to İlhan Tekeli’s “open planning” model. The study shows that digital participation risks remaining at the level of information or consultation when theoretical legitimacy, technological capacity, and legal-institutional bindingness do not coexist. The Turkish case illustrates this mismatch: constitutional and legal recognition, together with expanding digital infrastructure, has not consistently translated into participation at the levels of partnership and citizen power. The study therefore proposes an integrated three-axis framework for evaluating urban participation.

Özet

Dijital kentsel katılım platformlarının değerlendirilmesine yönelik ampirik çalışmalar hızla artmakla birlikte, bu uygulamaların hangi kuramsal, teknolojik ve politik zemin üzerinde yükseldiğine ilişkin bütüncül bir kavramsal çerçeve alan yazında sınırlı kalmaktadır. Bu çalışma, kentsel katılımı üç birbirini tamamlayan ekseni Türkiye bağlamında ele alan kavramsal bir derleme sunmayı amaçlamaktadır: (a) demokrasi kuramından Arnstein'ın katılım merdivenine uzanan kuramsal temeller, (b) sanayi devrimlerinden Toplum 5.0'a uzanan teknolojik dönüşüm ve bu dönüşümün büyük veri, yapay zekâ, nesnelerin interneti ve dijital platformlar aracılığıyla katılımı nasıl yeniden şekillendirdiği, ve (c) uluslararası politika belgelerinden Türkiye'nin yasal ve kurumsal çerçevesine uzanan politika zemini. Çalışma ayrıca, modernist rasyonel planlamadan iletişimsel planlamaya ve agonistik demokrasi ile temsil ötesi yaklaşımlara uzanan planlama paradigmalarındaki dönüşümü, İlhan Tekeli'nin “açık planlama” modeliyle ilişkilendirerek tartışmaktadır. Çalışma, kuramsal meşruiyet, teknolojik kapasite ve yasal-kurumsal bağlayıcılığın üçü bir arada bulunmadığında dijital katılımın bilgilendirme veya danışma düzeyinde sembolik kalma riski taşıdığını; Türkiye örneğinin, güçlü bir anayasal ve yasal temele sahip olmasına karşın katılımı çoğunlukla temsili ve danışmaya dayalı bir düzeyde tuttuğunu ortaya koymakta ve, kentsel katılım araştırmalarının kuram, teknoloji ve politikayı birbirinden ayrı ele almak yerine bütüncül bir çerçevede değerlendirmesi gerektiğini önermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gülser, H. İ. G., Gürel, Z. A. (2026). Participation in urban planning at the intersection of theory, technology and policy: A conceptual assessment through the Turkish case. İDEALKENT, Sayı: 51, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.2005349

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (92)

  1. Albrechts, L. (2004). Strategic (spatial) planning re-examined. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(5), 743–758.
  2. Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224.
  3. Aygün, M., & Kömürcüoğlu, M. (2023). Yerel yönetimler ve siyasal katılım: İstanbul Beyaz Masa örneği. TESAM Akademi Dergisi, 10(1), 93–125.
  4. Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press.
  5. Batty, M. (2013). The new science of cities. MIT Press.
  6. Beetham, D. (2014). Demokrasi ve insan hakları (2. Baskı). Liberte Yayınları.
  7. Belediye Kanunu (Kanun No. 5393). (2005). Resmî Gazete (Sayı: 25874). https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5393.pdf
  8. Bélanger, F., & Crossler, R. E. (2011). Privacy in the digital age: A review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 1017–1041.
  9. Biricikoğlu, H., & Akçayır, G. (2021). Toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğinin sağlanmasında Kent Konseyi Kadın Meclisinin rolü: Sapanca Kent Konseyi Kadın Meclisi örneği. Journal of Political Administrative and Local Studies, 4(2), 106–131.
  10. Borchers, M., Tavanapour, N., & Bittner, E. (2023). Exploring AI supported citizen argumentation on urban participation platforms. 56th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2023), Maui, HI, United States.
  11. Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679.
  12. Buser, M. (2014). Thinking through non-representational and affective atmospheres in planning theory and practice. Planning Theory, 13(3), 227–243.
  13. Calvo, R. A., & Peters, D. (2014). Positive computing: Technology for wellbeing and human potential. MIT Press.
  14. Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
  15. Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Harvard University Press.
  16. Çevresel Etki Değerlendirmesi Yönetmeliği. (2022). Resmî Gazete (Sayı: 31907). https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2022/07/20220729-2.htm
  17. Çukurçayır, M. A. (2000). Siyasal katılma ve yerel demokrasi: Küreselleşme sürecinde yurttaş, yönetim, siyaset. Yargı Yayınevi.
  18. Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University Press.
  19. Davenport, T. H. (2006). Competing on analytics. Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 98–107.
  20. Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331–338.
  21. Deguchi, A., Hirai, C., Matsuoka, H., Nakano, T., Oshima, K., Tai, M., & Tani, S. (2020). What is Society 5.0?, Society, 5, 1–24.
  22. Doğan, Y. K. C., & Kalkışım, Y. H. M. (2015). Türkiye'de yerel siyasete katılım açısından kent konseyleri: Gümüşhane Kent Konseyi örneği. Paradoks Ekonomi Sosyoloji ve Politika Dergisi, 11(2), 118–136.
  23. European Union (EU). (2007). Leipzig charter on sustainable European cities. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/reports/urban/leipzig_charter.pdf
  24. European Union (EU). (2020). The new Leipzig charter: The transformative power of cities for the common good. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/brochure/new_leipzig_charter/new_leipzig_charter_en.pdf
  25. Evans-Cowley, J., & Hollander, J. (2010). The new generation of public participation: Internet-based participation tools. Planning Practice & Research, 25(3), 397–408.
  26. Fagotto, E., & Fung, A. (2006). Empowered participation in urban governance: The Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30(3), 638–655.
  27. Faguet, J. P. (2014). Decentralization and governance. World Development, 53, 2–13.
  28. Faludi, A. (1973). The “systems view” and planning theory. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 7(1), 67–77.
  29. Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66, 66–75.
  30. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Polity Press.
  31. Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S., & Palaniswami, M. (2013). Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29(7), 1645–1660.
  32. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). Beacon Press.
  33. Hall, P. (2014). Cities of tomorrow: An intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century (4th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
  34. Harvey, D. (1985). The urbanization of capital: Studies in the history and theory of capitalist urbanization. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  35. Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Wiley-Blackwell.
  36. Hashem, I. A. T., Chang, V., Anuar, N. B., Adewole, K. S., Yaqoob, I., Gani, A., & Chiroma, H. (2016). The role of big data in smart city. International Journal of Information Management, 36(5), 748–758.
  37. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan.
  38. Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183–189.
  39. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2003). Collaborative policymaking: Governance through dialogue. In M. A. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society (pp. 33–59). Cambridge University Press.
  40. International Association for Public Participation. (t.y.). Core values for the practice of public participation. https://www.iap2.org/page/corevalues
  41. International Telecommunication Union. (2022). Measuring digital development: Facts and figures 2022. https://www.itu.int/hub/publication/d-ind-ict_mdd-2022/
  42. İmar Kanunu (Kanun No. 3194). (1985). Resmî Gazete (Sayı: 18749). https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.3194.pdf
  43. Kagermann, H. (2014). Change through digitization: Value creation in the age of Industry 4.0. In H. Albach, H. Meffert, A. Pinkwart, & R. Reichwald (Eds.), Management of permanent change (pp. 23–45). Springer Gabler.
  44. Karaman, O. (2013). Urban neoliberalism with Islamic characteristics. Urban Studies, 50(16), 3412–3427.
  45. Keleş, R., Erbay, Y., & Görmez, K. (2020). Türkiye'de ve Avrupa'da yerel temsil ve katılım. İmge Kitabevi.
  46. Kitchin, R. (2016). The ethics of smart cities and urban science. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2083), 113–119.
  47. Komninos, N. (2002). Intelligent cities: Innovation, knowledge systems and digital spaces. Routledge.
  48. Landemore, H. (2013). Deliberation, cognitive diversity, and democratic inclusiveness: An epistemic argument for the random selection of representatives. Synthese, 190, 1209–1231.
  49. Le Corbusier. (1987). The city of to-morrow and its planning. Dover Publications.
  50. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Wiley-Blackwell.
  51. Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454.
  52. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. University of Minnesota Press.
  53. Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., & Byers, A. H. (2011). Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. McKinsey Global Institute.
  54. Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
  55. Mekânsal Planlar Yapım Yönetmeliği. (2014). Resmî Gazete (Sayı: 29030). https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/06/20140614-2.htm
  56. Mokyr, J. (2003). The Second Industrial Revolution, 1870–1914. In J. Mokyr (Ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of economic history. Oxford University Press.
  57. Mumford, E. (2000). The CIAM discourse on urbanism, 1928–1960. MIT Press.
  58. Murdoch, J. (2006). Post-structuralist geography: A guide to relational space. Sage Publications.
  59. OECD. (2020). Innovative citizen participation and new democratic institutions: Catching the deliberative wave. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en
  60. O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown Publishing.
  61. Ökmen, M., & Demir, F. (2015). Türkiye'de katılımcı çevresel etki değerlendirmesi ve Uşak ili örneği. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (27), 1–9.
  62. Özgür, Ö., & Uluocak, G. P. (2011). Kentleşme-kentlileşme sürecinde sivil toplum örgütlerinin rolü: Ankara'da bir semt derneği ve gecekondu mahallesi örneğinde bir değerlendirme. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(1), 230–247.
  63. Rifkin, J. (2011). The third industrial revolution: How lateral power is transforming energy, the economy, and the world. Palgrave Macmillan.
  64. Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. The American Review of Public Administration, 34(4), 315–353.
  65. Rosener, J. B. (1978). Citizen participation: Can we measure its effectiveness? Public Administration Review, 38(5), 457–463.
  66. Sandercock, L. (1998). Towards cosmopolis: Planning for multicultural cities. Wiley.
  67. Schrock, A. R. (2016). Civic hacking as data activism and advocacy: A history from publicity to open government data. New Media & Society, 18(4), 581–599.
  68. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Brothers.
  69. Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution. Crown Business.
  70. Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491–507.
  71. Şahnagil, S. (2017). Kamu politikası oluşturma sürecinde bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri: e-Devlet uygulamaları. Mersin Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(1), 77–89.
  72. Şat, N. (2020). Kent hakkı, neo-liberalizm ve kentsel katılım. In H. Reyhan & R. Satır Reyhan (Eds.), Sürdürülebilirlik: Kent bilim fotoğrafları (pp. 269–310). Palme Yayıncılık.
  73. Taylor, N. (1998). Urban planning theory since 1945. Sage Publications.
  74. Tekeli, İ. (2023). Açık planlamaya doğru. İdealkent Yayınları.
  75. Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational theory: Space, politics, affect. Routledge.
  76. Tunç, H. (2008). Demokrasi türleri ve müzakereci demokrasi kavramı. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(1), 1113–1132.
  77. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası. (1961). T.C. Anayasa Mahkemesi. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/mevzuat/onceki-anayasalar/1961-anayasasi/
  78. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası. (1982). Resmî Gazete (Sayı: 17863 Mükerrer). https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.2709.pdf
  79. United Nations. (1976). The Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlements. https://unhabitat.org/habitat-i
  80. United Nations. (1992). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf
  81. United Nations. (1996). Habitat II Istanbul Declaration on Human Settlements. https://unhabitat.org/habitat-ii
  82. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
  83. United Nations. (2017). New Urban Agenda. https://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/NUA-English.pdf
  84. UN-Habitat. (2002). Report of the first session of the World Urban Forum. https://wuf.unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/files/WUF1-Report%20Nairobi%202002.pdf
  85. UN-Habitat. (2021). Building capacity for people-centred smart cities: A playbook for local and regional governments. https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2022/06/playbook6_capacity.pdf
  86. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
  87. Vrabie, C. (2025). Improving municipal responsiveness through AI-powered image analysis in E-Government. Viešoji Politika ir Administravimas, 24(1), 9–23.
  88. White, S. C. (1996). Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice, 6(1), 6–15.
  89. Wilson, W. H. (1989). The city beautiful movement. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  90. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. United Nations. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/139811
  91. Yaman, F. T. (2017). Katılımcı demokrasi: Kapsam ve unsurlar. Trakya Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi E-Dergi, 6(2), 136–160.
  92. Yavuz, I., Kutlay, E., & Can, D. (2021). Türkiye'de bölgesel planlamanın kurumsallaşması: Muğlak bir süreci güncel kuramlar ile okumak. İdealkent, 12(32), 14–51.