İstanbul konut alanlarında mekansal sürdürülebilirlik /
Yazar: SEDA KUNDAK
Danışman: PROF. DR. HALE ÇIRACI
İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi / Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü / Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Ana Bilim Dalı
Derece: Yüksek Lisans, 1999
Konu: Şehircilik ve Bölge Planlama = Urban and Regional Planning
Dizin: Konut alanları = Housing lands ; Mekan = Space ; Sürdürülebilirlik = Sustainability ; İstanbul = Istanbul

Özet:
Şehirsel sürdürülebilirlik, özellikle 1990'lardan sonra hızla gelişmiş ve üzerinde bir çok araştırmalar yapılmış yeni bir olgudur. Farklı bilim dallarının yaklaşımları arasında farklılıklar olmakla birlikte sürdürülebilirlik kavramı, temelde insan hayatını ve yerleşimlerini etkileyen doğal çevre, ekonomik yapı ve sosyal yapının oluşturduğu sistemde, bu üç bileşen arasında denge sağlanması esasına dayanmaktadır. Sürdürülebilir kalkınmayı sağlamak bu üç bileşenden hiç birini feda etmeden bir gelişme yönü saptamaktır. Yukarıda belirtilen kuramsal tanımlann somut hale getirilmesi mekansal sürdürülebilirliğin sağlanmasıyla gerçekleşmektedir. Sürdürülebilir gelişmenin şehir plancılarını ilgilendiren boyutu, mekansal sürdürülebilirlik olup, bu kavram yaşam kalitesini yükseltmeye yönelik arazi kullanım-ulaşım kararlarının dayanacağı ölçütleri kapsamaktadır. Şehir mekanını oluşturan arazi kullanımı ve bu kullanımları birbirine bağlayan ulaşım sistemlerinin etkin kullanımı mekansal sürdürülebilirliği sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın 2. Bölümü'nde, şehir planlama biliminde sürdürülebilirlik kavramına nasıl gelindiği, farklı bilim dallarına göre sürdürülebilirlik tanımlan ve Dünyada sürdürülebilir planlama amaçlı yapılmış çalışmalardan örnekler verilmiştir. Bölüm 3'de şehirsel sürdürülebilirlik açıklanmış ve uygulamalarının nasıl olabileceği konusunda yaklaşımlara yer verilmiştir. Bölüm 4'de, İstanbul'un mekansal sürdürülebilirlik kriterleri çerçevesinde bir değerlendirilmesi yapılmıştır. Bölüm 5'de ise, İstanbul konut alanlannda mekansal sürdürülebilirlik göstergesi olarak erişilebilirlik ve sosyal donatılarla arazi değerleri arasındaki bağıntılar incelenmiştir.

Abstract:
The concept of sustainability is starting to have a significant influence on planning and policy at the local level. A certain number of communities are starting to adopt sustainability as a goal in comprehensive plans and other planning activities. In literature, sustainability is often mentioned as integration equity, protection of natural environment, minimal use of nonrenewable resources, economic vitality and diversity, community self-reliance, individual well being and satisfaction of basic human needs. The concept of sustainable development was born from a pervasive awareness of global failures to sustain economic development and to maintain the balance between natural and man-made environments, a task which overwhelms all countries. Development cannot subsist in a deteriorating environmental base; the environment cannot be protected when growth leaves out of account the costs of environmental damage and destruction. These problems are linked with complex interactions between human cultures and the physical environment. Sustainable development is defined as a process of social change in which the population and intended functions of a community can be maintained into the indefinite future without degrading capital stocks. Capital stocks are the unison of the community institutions, the different means of production, the infrastructure system, the resources base and natural and man-made environments. Sustainable development embraces the environment as a mainstream of scientific and economic factors in all policy, planning and decision - making initiatives. Far from requiring a cessation of economic activity, the goal is to stimulate a new era of development while enhancing the cultural and natural environments and society's resource base. The revived development must be a kind in which sustainability, equity, social justice and security are firmly embedded as major social goals. Sustainable development is a process of change in which the utilization ofresources, direction of investment, the orientation of technology development and institutional reform are in harmony and enhance both the current and future potential to meet human needs in a community - wide and environmental sustainable basis. More specifically, sustainable development requires:. A political system securing citizen participation in decision making,. An economic system that is able to generate surpluses and technical knowledge on a self-reliant and sustainable basis,. A social system that provides for solutions for the tensions arising from disharmony. A production system that respects the obligation to preserve the ecological base for development. A technological system that can search continuously for new solutions,. An international system that fosters sustainable patterns of trade and finance,. A flexible and self correcting administrative system. It is essential to understand that the concept of sustainability is dynamic and multifaceted. The long-term focus should be on the promotion of human capacity building, social, economic, and cultural well-toeing and on the ecological functions of the natural surroundings and the resources that they generate. Human capacity building requires improvements in the basic living standards of the presently disadvantaged. City development should be kept within the carrying capacity of the region and national and international cooperation should enhance development, which is sustainable. The concept of the sustainable city should include; the cultural, social and economic aspects of the whole urban - rural environment and must be perceived as beneficial by individual actors in their communities, to be successful. The cultural and attitudinal factors that are part of and inherent in city growth, need to be identified. This is because they are equally subject to transformation and therefore are important in shaping human settlement. Sustainable development must be based on true civic commitment and the knowledge that every citizen can gain from improved practices. Research efforts XImust be increased to study urban development and to identify and document the changes that citizens can and will accept. In the process of change the common view of the city must be broadened to encompass the close interactions between urban and rural areas. Local, regional and global carrying capacities of urban and rural ecosystems are being jeopardised by current patterns of linear flows of materials. A major component in any city agenda must be to transform these flows into sustainable closed loops. The fact that ecosystems from the precondition for long-term human welfare should be communicated to all actors in the formal and informal economic sectors. Planning and economic development of industrial and other enterprises should take into consideration the environmental costs of activities. This is to ensure that the city can fonction as a driving force for economic development, without causing irreversible damage to the ecosystems within the region. A changed attitude in this respect is of crucial importance in order to come to grips with many environmental problems. The costs for negative environmental effects and degradation have to be taken into account at an early stage of planning. There is no single "best" definition of urban sustainability, since different communities are likely to develop slightly, or even significantly, depending on their current economic, environmental and social circumstances and on community value judgements. As a consequence, a set of indicators designed to measure progress towards achievement of a specific human community's sustainability goals may not necessarily be appropriate for measuring progress in abother community. There are certain fundamental properties of sustainability indicators that all communities will wish to consider. One definition of urban sustainability indicators is that they are "bellwether tests of sustainability and reflect something basic and fundamental to the long term economic, social and environmental health of a community over generations" (Sustainable Seattle 1993). This definition provides a good starting point, but it requires considerable elaboration. Looking first at the "indicator" component of "urban sustainability indicators", it is important to remember that most indicators are simplifications of complex phenomena. The term "indicator" should therefore be taken literally in the sense that it provides only an indication of conditions or problems. Since a single indicator will seldom be able to give the full Xllpicture, it is often useful to employ a wide range of indicators to characterize the different dimensions or aspects of a situation. Unfortunately, this requirement can conflict with the need to identify a fairly limited set of indicators for purposes of decision-making and to minimize double-counting. Urban sustainability indicators can be distinguished from simple environmental, economic, and social indicators by the fact that they are integrating, forward-looking, distributional and developed with input from multiple stakeholders in the community. All sustainability indicators should posses the last characteristics. Sustainability in space refers in general to an ecologically compatible spatial and socio - economic development in a spatial system, taking into account mutually conflicting but also mutually supporting developments in all areas of the system. This means that a certain development in space should not jeopardize the interest of other land users, now and in the future. Clearly, the spatial scale of analysis is of critical importance. A rather promising approach which ensures a balance between theoretical-conceptual justification and operational validity is to construct a spatial system's model which would depict the structural relationships of the system under consideration and to assess and evaluate the outcomes of such a system's model on the basis of alternative policy-relevant scenarios for spatial, economic or infrastructural development Sustainability in space is closely connected with spatial externalities. Such externalities emerge as a result of the geographical separation of economic activities and related transport flows and are hence site-specific. The existence of externalities in a network may have system-wide impacts in relation to both supply and demand of transport; in any case a distinction has to be made between mobile sources. In the context of sustainable development strategies it has in the recent literature become common to make a distinction between weak and strong sustainability. A strong sustainability development implies an improvement of all constituents of a welfare function, without allowing for a decline in any component. A weak sustainability development would still imply a rise in the overall welfare function, but would allow some trade-offs in terms of positive and negative changes in some components. This distinction has a clear interpretation in a spatial system, as X1Usubstitution and comprehension can easily be envisaged in different areas of such a system. Consequently, spatial sustainability will normally be weak in nature. Another distinction concerns internal and external sustainability, where internal refers to sustainable development inside a given area and where external refers to resulting sustainable developments in the adjacent area. Thus the latter distinction refers to the open nature of the spatial system. Quality of life is considered one of the three basic components of spatial sustainability. Moreover, physical planning is a main policy instrument to improve quality of life by preventing ecological decline and raw material waste. In Istanbul a multi central structure has developed in the last decade. Owing this structure could decrease not only mobility of vehicles between residential - business districts but also provide integration of planed and unplanned areas. The 6th part of this study analyzes the relationship between land price of residential areas and accessibility and social facilities in the Istanbul Metropolitan Area, in the frame of multi central structure of land use. In the context of spatial sustainability 3 hypothesis have been examined: 1. In unplanned areas, where social facilities are missing, residential land price is lower than planned areas. 2. There is a direct relationship between the diversity of transportation modes and the accessibility level which results in higher residential land prices. 3. Near the CBD and the other sub-centres, residential land price increases. Distance from CBD is distinctive for residential land price. The geographical advantage of Istanbul offers another transportation mode: the sea transportation system. This variable has been included in the analytic model as of it may affect residential land prices. The relationship between density-residential land price is related to the distance from the CBD and planned-unplanned areas. Thus this relationship may differ from region to region. From 23 districts, only 333 neighbourhoods where the residential level is high a total of 556 neighbourhoods are included in the analytic study. The other 223 neighbourhoods are not included in the study field. XIVAfter multi - regression analysis, independent variables are able to explain 32% of residential land price on the European Side and 61% on the Asian Side. On the European Side there are two dominant centres; one is which is tine traditional CBD in the Eminönü Region, and the other is the linear sub-centre from Şişli to Maslak in the Beyoğlu Region. In the Eminönü Region, independent variables explain 59% of the residential land price. In the Beyoğlu Region this explication level decreases to 38%. In both the European and Asian Sides of the Istanbul Metropolitan Area, there are transformations from residential area to sub-centre in two districts. One is found on the European Side, the Bakırköy Region and the other is on the Asian Side, the Kartal Region. The Bakırköy Region is actually dominated by the traditional CBD Eminönü, however, in its own region, it has a central role. In the Bakırköy Region, independent variables explain 87% of residential land price. In the Kartal Region this explication decreases to 48%. While the independent variable of distance from CBD is significant in Bakırköy Region, this value is only %56 in the Kartal Region. The independent variable of accessibility is more or less significant in the whole Istanbul Metropolitan area. The multi-central structure, should be integrated with accessibility to reach spatial sustainability in Istanbul. In other words, in the Istanbul Metropolitan Area, it is vital to improve and encourage sub - centres while supporting public transportation system such as sea transportation and rail transportation. Lack of social facilities decreases the quality of life, which is another problem area to solve for spatial and social sustainability. As a result, decision makers have to prevent and limit future squatter areas, and integrate the present one's into the planned areas.