Community engagement in developing urban design guidance for heritage sites: The case of Bursa, Turkey

Abstract

In recent years, central and local governments have carried out studies to establish a legal administrative infrastructure for urban design and to develop urban design guidance to preserve the identity of historic cities under the pressure of rapid urbanization in Turkey. The main aim of this article is to explain how we implemented a participatory urban design guidance (PUrDeG) model for cultural heritage sites, which was developed as part of a research project. We explain how we used various techniques to engage various actors in preparing urban design guidelines for a cultural heritage site. In addition, the article discusses the importance of community engagement techniques and processes in developing urban design guidance, and the context of guidelines for sustainable conservation of cultural heritage sites with examples from the United Kingdom and Turkey. It then presents a case study conducted in the Hanlar District, a Unesco world heritage site in Bursa, Turkey. The case study includes research on planning decisions, site analysis, a survey of urban residents, in depth interviews with local artisans, and an urban design workshop with various actors. The main outcomes of this study include a presentation of how to use various community engagement techniques to prepare urban design guidelines for cultural heritage sites in Turkey, an urban design guidance system for Bursa, and a list of recommendations related to urban design guidelines for the Hanlar District and Bursa in the light of UK experience.

Heritage and Sustainability: Regulating Participation

“…An example is offered by the relation between the encouragement of partnerships to ensure the right of all relevant stakeholders to participate in decision making and benefits, the effective implementation of participatory heritage practices as a driver of heritage conservation and safeguarding, and of sustainable heritage management and governance. It reinforces the advocated relation between inclusive and equitable approaches to heritage practices and their sustained management and conservation solutions [98,[110][111][112][113]. Moreover, most of the analyzed documents also stress a direct linkage between the implementation of participatory heritage practices for a more resilient and sustainable living environment and for the sustainable development of local communities with generic, interventional, and partnership forms of participation.…”

“…This trend is in line with the increased advocacy for more active and inclusive governance models [65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78], which is reflected in the emergence of theorization about and widespread attempts to implement people-centered approaches in heritage processes [2,22]. However, while much case studies-based research focuses on the engagement of communities, groups, and individuals, advocating their active participation throughout the heritage processes [99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][109][110][111][112][113], this research argues that there is no necessary hierarchy among passive and active forms of participation, which are mutually complementary at different stages of sustainabilityoriented heritage practices. This conclusion contributes to the criticism of the idea of a 'ladder of participation' or the outline of levels of participation that attributes a negative connotation to more passive steps, such as information and consultation.…”

“…Moreover, most of the analyzed documents also stress a direct linkage between the implementation of participatory heritage practices for a more resilient and sustainable living environment and for the sustainable development of local communities with generic, interventional, and partnership forms of participation. It emphasizes that the inclusive and equitable development of local communities is a necessary integrated factor for sustainable urban, peri-urban, and rural development [110][111][112][113]. Lastly, generic forms of participation seemed also to be preferred for the promotion of participation as a right and as an enabler, fitting the purpose of creating a vision for future practices, without concrete definitions of how to achieve that vision being given, however, and require complementation with other more explicit forms of participation.…”

“…Despite participation being an integral part of international heritage regulation framing the linkages between heritage and sustainability, international documents seldom define it or specify the contribution of participatory practices to the sustainable development objectives [98]. Even though research today is furthering the understanding of the 'sustainability roles' of participation, primarily through case studies, comparative studies and the development of theoretical frameworks are limited [99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113]. Recent research identified three main roles of participation in achieving sustainable development objectives-participation as a right, as a driver, and as an enabler-and nine subcategories (see Figure 1) [98].…”

Beyond Culture and Civilization: Community-Based Approaches to Strengthening Architecture and Urban Heritage Conservation in Southern Egypt

“…These include public-private partnerships, adaptive reuse projects, community-based initiatives, and cultural mapping projects [2,16,[22][23][24][25]. The fourth section looks at international case studies in urban heritage conservation worldwide [13,15,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. These include examples from Europe (e.g., Barcelona), North America (e.g., New…”