Siirt Üniversitesi, Güzel Sanatlar ve Tasarım Fakültesi, Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Bölümü, Siirt, Türkiye
Abstract
In the twenty-first century, urban areas have become the intersection of climate change, uncontrolled demographic mobility, technological transformations, and increasingly deepening socio-economic polarizations. This complexity challenges the rational-comprehensive and static methods of the traditional city planning discipline. Especially in regions like Van-Edremit, where the sensitivity of coastal ecology coexists with seismic risks and the pressures of urbanization created by rapid migration, "one-size-fits-all" planning solutions remain inadequate in establishing urban resilience and social justice.The fundamental inquiry of this study focuses on flexible and strategic solution seeking offered by thematic planning approaches against the limitations of conventional planning methods in managing these complex urban dynamics. The primary argument of the study is that approaching the same urban space through different theoretical lenses—Resilience, Just City, and Eco-City—fundamentally alters the spatial configuration, strategic land-use decisions, and transportation hierarchy.In this context, three different thematic master development plan scenarios at a scale of 1/5000, developed for the Van-Edremit region within the scope of a studio course at the Siirt University Department of City and Regional Planning, were analyzed comparatively based on criteria such as urban form, equipment distribution performance, transportation network hierarchy, and spatial justice. This article discusses the effectiveness of the scenario-based method in planning education and the potential of thematic planning as a research tool in applied sciences, specifically within the case of Van-Edremit.
KOÇAK, E. (2026). Comparative Analysis of Spatial Outputs in Thematic Planning Approaches: A Case Study of Van–Edremit. MAS Journal of Applied Sciences, 11(2), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20325872
📄Bibri, S.E., 2017. From compact city to smart city: A sustainability science & synergy perspective. Journal of Energy and Power Engineering, 11(4): 224-245.
📄Bibri, S.E., 2021. The compact city paradigm and its centrality in sustainable urbanism in the era of big data revolution: A comprehensive state-of-the-art literature review. Energy Informatics, 4(1): 1-45.
📄Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E.L., BurnSilver, S., Cundill, G., Dakos, V., Daw, T.M., Evans, L.S., Kotschy, K., Leitch, A.M., Meek, C., Quinlan, A., Westley, C., 2012. Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37: 421-448.
📄Davoudi, S., 2012. Resilience: A bridging concept or a dead end? Planning Theory & Practice, 13(2): 299-307.
📄Deniz, O., 2014. 2011 Van depremi ve kentsel nüfusta mekânsal farklılaşmalar. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 27: 135-156.
📄Edremit Belediyesi., 2024. Doğal sit alanları koruma amaçlı imar planı açıklama raporu. T.C. Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı, (https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db /van/duyurular/em-npa_a-tvk-planraporu-20240319093152.pdf), (Erişim tarihi: 10.01.2026).
📄Environment & Veterinary Sciences Institute (EVS). Planning eco-cities: Principles, practices, and the path forward, (https://evs.institute/urban-environment/ec o-city-planning-principles-practices-path/), (Erişim tarihi: 10.01.2026).
📄Fainstein, S.S., 2010. The just city. Cornell University Press.
📄Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S., 2002. Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press.
📄Harvey, D., 1973. Social justice and the city. Edward Arnold.
📄Harvey, D., 2008. The right to the city. New Left Review, 53: 23-40.
📄Holling, C.S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1): 1-23.
📄Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics, 86: 235-245.
📄Khalifi N.B., Avgoustaki, D.D., Bartzanas, T., 2025. Integrating life cycle assessment into green infrastructure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of urban sustainability strategies. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 7.
📄Meerow, S., Newell, J.P., 2016. Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why? Urban Geography, 37(1): 38-49.
📄Pickett, S.T.A., Cadenasso, M.L., McGrath, B., 2013. Ecological resilience as a foundation for urban design and sustainability. Landscape and Urban Planning, 112: 1–4.
📄Soja, E.W., 2010. Seeking spatial justice. University of Minnesota Press.
📄Register, R., 2006. Ecocities: Rebuilding cities in balance with nature. New Society Publishers.
📄Reyes, J.P., 2024. Beyond distribution: Critique of spatial justice theories-case study of Shanghai's 15-minute city. Land, 14(1): 189.
📄Sharifi, A., 2016. A critical review of selected urban resilience assessment frameworks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 148: 165-179.
📄Soja, E.W., 2010. Seeking spatial justice. University of Minnesota Press.
📄Turmepa., 2021. Van Gölü Havzası Koruma Eylem Planı. DenizTemiz Dergisi, 63:
📄United Nations Centre for Regional Development. Smart city training material: Smart eco-cities, (https://uncrd.un.org/sites/ uncrd.un.org/files/smart-city-training-material_4_smart-eco-cities.pdf), (Erişim tarihi: 10.01.2026).
📄Urban Design Lab., 2023. Integrating ecological theory with regional climate planning for resilient cities, (https://urbandesignlab.in/integrating-ecolo gical-theory-with-regional-climate-plann ing-for-resilient-cities/), (Erişim tarihi: 10.01.2026).