Abstract
The project presented here was conducted in the province of Yalova, Turkey, and was aimed at making an integrated assessment of possible future states of the province in 2020, given the local driving forces (e.g., demographic trends; people’s attitudes, perceptions and priorities regarding socio-economic and ecological issues; and the nature of governance) and the external factors (at the regional, national and global levels). It is believed that the questioning of local driving forces and external factors that today prevail in the province help us understand the possible directions of change in the city. Therefore, this chapter focuses on the multiple forces operating at various spatial scales impacting on Yalova. It is hoped that the approach reported will be of wider relevance to other regional and local authorities, considering the need for integrating external developments with local factors.
The first section of this chapter briefly introduces the scenario methodology and clarifies what is meant here by driving forces for those who are not familiar with the approach; this has been followed by an introductory section to the Yalova case study. Subsequently, local and external factors important in shaping the future of the province are carefully identified and listed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of ways in which local, domestic and international contexts can interact and impact Yalova.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alcamo, J. (2001). Scenarios as tools for international environmental assessments. Environmental Issue Report 24. Copenhagen: European Environmental Agency.
Arsel, M. (2005). The Bergama Imbroglio. In F. Adaman & M. Arsel (Eds.), Environmentalism in Turkey: Between democracy and development (pp. 263–276). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Beauregard, R. A. (1995). Theorizing the global-local connection. In L. Knox & P. J. Taylor (Eds.), World cities in a world system (pp. 233–248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Castells, M. (2000). Urban sociology in the twenty-first century. In I. Susser (Ed.), The Castells reader on cities and social theory (pp. 390–406). Oxford: Blackwell.
Clayton, A., Wehrmeyer, W., & Ngubane, B. (2003). Foresighting for development. London: Earthscan.
Cohen, B. (2004). Urban growth in developing countries: A review of current trends and a caution regarding existing forecasts. World Development, 32(1), 23–51.
CEC (Commission of the European Communities). (1999). Scenarios Europe-2010. Five possible futures for Europe. Bruxelles: Forward Studies Unit of the European Commission.
CEC (Commission of European Communities). (2004). Regular report on Turkey’s progress toward accession. Bruxelles: Commission of European Communities.
de Mooij, R., & Tang, P. (2003). Four futures of Europe. The Hague: Centraal Planbureau.
Eder, M. (2002). The challenge of globalization and Turkey’s changing political economy. In B. Rubin & K. Kirişçi (Eds.), Turkey in world politics: An emerging multi-regional power (pp. 249–284). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
EEA (European Environmental Agency). (2000). Cloudy crystal balls. Environmental Issues Series 17. Copenhagen: European Environmental Agency.
EEA (European Environmental Agency). (2004). Mapping the impacts of recent natural disasters and technological accidents. Environmental Issue Report 35. Copenhagen: European Environmental Agency.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gallopin, G. C., Hammond, A., Raskin, P., & Swart, R. (1997). Branch points: Global scenarios and human choice. Global Scenario Group. PoleStar Series Report 7. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute.
Gallopin, G. C., & Rijsberman, F. (2000). Three global water scenarios. International Journal of Water, 1(1), 16–40.
Ghanadan, R. (2002). Choices ahead: Three alternative development scenarios for California. Berkeley, CA: The Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development [http://www.nautilus.org/archives/pub/ftp/napsnet/special_reports/RHGMAPaperNautilus062202.pdf; accessed 2 February 2007].Report of The Energy and Resources Group.
Gibson, C. C., Ostrom, E., & Ahn, T. K. (2000). The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: A survey. Ecological Economics, 32(2), 217–239.
Healey P., Cameron S., Davoudi S., Graham S., Madanipour A. (Eds.) (1995). Managing cities: The new urban context. London: Wiley.
Işık, O., & Güvenç, M. (1999) The changing nature of Turkish urbanization and economic geography on eve of the 21st century: New challenges and new opportunities. TUSİAD Report, pp. 52–83.
Kadirbeyoğlu, Z. (2005). Assessing the efficacy of transnational advocacy networks. In F. Adaman & M. Arsel (Eds.), Environmentalism in Turkey: Between democracy and development (pp. 101–116). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Kaygusuz, K., & Arsel, M. (2005). Energy politics and policy. In F. Adaman & M. Arsel (Eds.), Environmentalism in Turkey: Between democracy and development (pp. 149–166). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Keyder, Ç. (1999). İstanbul: Between the global and the local. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Keyder, Ç. (2003). Memalik-i Osmaniye’den Avrupa Birliği’ne. (From the Ottoman Empire to the European Union). Istanbul: İletişim Publications.
Kirişçi, K. (2002). US-Turkish relations: New uncertainties in a renewed partnership. In B. Rubin & K. Kirişçi (Eds.), Turkey in world politics: An emerging multi-regional power (pp. 122–150). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
Larrabee, F. S., & Lesser, I. O. (2003). Turkish foreign policy in an age of uncertainty. Arlington: RAND Publications.
Martinez-Alier, J. (2002). Environmentalism of the poor: A study of ecological conflicts and valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Munda, G. (2006). Social multi-criteria evaluation for urban sustainability policies. Land Use Policy, 23(1), 86–94.
Noronha, L., Lourenco, N., Lobo-Ferreira, J., & Lleopart, A. (2002). Coastal tourism, environment and sustainable development. New Delhi: TERI Publications.
Öniş, Z. (2000a). The Turkish economy at the turn of the new century: Critical and comparative perspectives. In M. Abramowitz (Ed.), Turkey’s transformation and American policy. Washington, DC: The Century Foundation Press.
Öniş, Z. (2000b). Neoliberal globalization and the democracy paradox: Interpreting the Turkish general elections of 1999. Journal of International Affairs, 54(2), 23–40.
Öniş, Z. (2003). Domestic politics, international norms and challenges to the state: Turkey-EU relations in the Post-Helsinki era. In A. Çarkoğlu & B. Rubin (Eds.), Turkey and the European union (pp. 9–34). London: Frank Cass.
Öniş, Z., & Keyman, F. (2003). Helsinki, Copenhagen and beyond: Challenges to the New Europe and the Turkish state. Paper presented at the conference on Cyprus’ European accession and the Greek–Turkish rivalry, Yale University, New Haven.
Özkaynak, B. (2005). Indicators and scenarios for urban development and sustainability. Ph.D. Thesis. Spain: Autonomous University of Barcelona.
Raskin, P., Banuri, T., Gallopin, G., Gutman, P., Hammond, A., Kates, R., et al. (2002). Great transition: The promise and lure of the times ahead. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute [http://www.tellus.org/seib/publications/Great_Transitions.pdf; accessed 2 February 2007].SEI PoleStar Series Report 10, Global Scenario Group.
Ravetz, J., Gough, C., & Shackley, S. (2000). Urban development 2050. Draft scenario report from the new futures workshop. Manchester: Manchester University.
Rothmans, J., van Asselt, M., Anastasi, C., Rothman, D., Greeuw, S., & van den Bers, C. (2001). Integrated visions for a sustainable Europe. Final report. Maastricht: ICIS.
Schwartz, P. (1991). The art of the long view: Planning for the future in an uncertain world. New York: Currency Doubleday.
TUIK (Turkish Institute of Statistics). (2000). Census of population: Social and economic characteristics of population (by province). Ankara: Turkish Institute of Statistics.
TUIK (Turkish Institute of Statistics). (2002). Population statistics of Turkey. Ankara: Turkish Institute of Statistics.
UNEP (United Nations Development Programme). (2002). Global environment outlook (Vol. 3). London: Earthscan.
van Asselt, M. B. A., Storms, C. A. M. H., Rijkens-Klomp, N., & Rothmans, J. (1998). Towards visions for a sustainable Europe: An overview and assessment of the last decade in European scenario studies. Maastricht: ICIS.
van Notten, P. W. F., Rotmans, J., van Asselt, M. B. A., & Rothman, D. S. (2003). An updated scenario typology. Futures, 35(5), 423–443.
Yeşil Atlas. (2003). Turkey’s natural heritage: Zero extinction (Vol. 6). Istanbul: Doğan Yayıncılık.
Acknowledgements
This chapter draws on Begüm Özkaynak’s Ph.D. thesis, 2005, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. The support of Özkaynak’s IGSOC scholarship is gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Özkaynak, B. (2010). Driving Forces and Spatial Impacts: An Integrated Approach for Small- and Medium-Sized Cities. In: Cerreta, M., Concilio, G., Monno, V. (eds) Making Strategies in Spatial Planning. Urban and Landscape Perspectives, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3106-8_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3106-8_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-3105-1
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-3106-8
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)