Focus Groups in Turkey Final Report

 Focus Groups in Turkey Final Report by Tüzin Baycan -­‐ Ulaş Akın July 2014 ♮ I s t a n b u l Table of Contents 1. Introduction page 4 1.1 Project Brief 4 1.2 Background and Objectives 5 1.2.1 General Objectives 5 1.2.2 Focus Group Objectives 6 1.3 Initial Situation 6 1.4 Conclusions 9 2. Focused Results: Looking Ahead 2040 page 12 2.1 Grand Challenges 2.2 12 Areas for Radical Change 17 2.3 Innovative Approach 22 2.4 Lessons Learned and Best Practices 26 3. Focused Results: SEiSMiC Framework page 29 3.1 Objectives and Benefits 29 3.1.1 Individual Context 29 3.1.2 Urban Context 30 3.2 32 3.2.1 Individual Context 32 34 Success and Failure Criteria 36 36 38 4. Appendix (Focus Group Participants) page 40 4.1 İstanbul Focus Group Participants 40 4.2 Muş Focus Group Participants 41 4.3 Hatay Focus Group Participants 42 Framework 3.2.2 Urban Context 3.3 3.3.1 Individual Context 3.3.2 Urban Context 2 This Focus Group Final Report is written by Tüzin Baycan, Prof. Dr., national SEiSMiC Project coordinator for Turkey, and Ulaş Akın, MSc, moderator of three focus group meetings organized in İstanbul, Muş, and Hatay provinces’ city centers in June 2014, Turkey. Report used the inputs from the presentations by Prof. Dr. Tüzin Baycan and Ulaş Akın made in three meetings, notes taken during the meetings, participant observation notes, handwritings of participants’ ideas’ generated in the meetings that are put in digital platform by three research assistants from İTÜ; Mr.Veysi Altıntaş (SEiSMiC staff), Mr.Gökhan Karabulut, and Ms.Aysun Aygün. Photo credits are for the official SEiSMiC web site, and for cover photos taken by Ulaş Akın, and other photos taken by Ümit Yıldırım and Kemal Dağhan. © 2014 İstanbul 3 1. Introduction 1.1 Project Brief SEiSMiC Project (Societal Engagement in Science, Mutual Learning in Cities) helps tackle Europe's biggest urban problems by engaging citizens, identifying social innovation needs and contributing to future urban policies and research strategies. It builds diverse networks of urban stakeholders to propose effective, widely agreed solutions. It then engages the public in creative ways, so that research learns from citizens and citizens learn from research. Within the project, national networks will be established in 10 European countries with the aim of engaging society in urban research. These networks include civil society organizations, media, schools and universities, museums, science centers, research-­‐funding organizations, industries, businesses and policy makers. Bringing these networks together for structured dialogue will help bridging the scientific community and society. SEiSMiC is a support action funded under the EU's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) for research, technological development and demonstration, in the context of the European Commission's Science in Society Programme. It contributes a social dimension to the EC's Strategic Research & Innovation Agenda and supports the Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) Urban Europe (http://jpi-­‐urbaneurope.eu). Established in 2010 by several EU member states and associated countries, JPI Urban Europe seeks to coordinate and strengthen urban research and innovation across Europe. SEiSMiC Project Official Web Site (http://www.seismicproject.eu) SEiSMiC is one of two FP7-­‐funded actions that will support JPI Urban Europe between November 2013 and November 2016. 13 partners are implementing the project. It involves network building in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom. 4 1.2 Background and Objectives 1.2.1 General Objectives SEiSMiC Project has four general objectives. These are: -­‐ Mobilize wide range of urban actors (civil society) by setting up National Networks in 10 countries across Europe, -­‐ Initiate processes of social innovation in the participating countries by bringing together a diverse set of actors, -­‐ Contribute to the social dimension of stakeholder engagement in JPI Urban Europe, -­‐ Diffuse initiatives, projects and results from JPI Urban Europe to local, regional, national and European levels. SEiSMiC National Networks (http://seismicproject.eu/index.php?page=national-­‐networks) Within this frame of general objectives, SEiSMiC has specific national networks’ (NaNet) objectives. These are: -­‐ Identify the most important issues within the interplay of social innovation and the “grand challenges”, -­‐ No drop-­‐outs: High motivation and continuation within NaNets should be ensured, NaNet success is ‘SEiSMiC success’, -­‐ Dialogs and mutual learning within a creative and innovative atmosphere, SEiSMiC architecture supported by creative methodologies, -­‐ Generating new ideas, implementing joint activities and generating tangible results, -­‐ Gathering and sharing good practices of social innovation all over Europe, -­‐ Including already existing activities, -­‐ Ensuring outreach. 5 1.2.2 Focus Group Objectives In order to set up national networks Focus Groups are essential. They are to elevate strategic importance as well as urgent issues at national level covering diverse perspectives of people involved in several discussions such as: -­‐ Urban Challenges in 2040, -­‐ Areas for radical change, -­‐ Existing or desirable innovative approaches, -­‐ Lessons learned and best practices. Collective contribution of Focus Group members provides a benefit in order to have a tailored SEiSMiC architecture for self-­‐organisation (governance model), particularly focusing on: -­‐ Central objectives and benefits of the SEiSMiC network, -­‐ Framework (roles, rules, actors), -­‐ Success and failure criteria and risks for building up a national network. 1.3 Initial Situation Three provinces selected for focus groups in Turkey: İstanbul, Muş and Hatay. They are representing cities of different sizes, characteristics and socio-­‐economic development levels in the country. İstanbul as the most, Muş as the least and Hatay as the moderate levels of socio-­‐economically developed provinces addressed. In order to establish the Turkish National Network, three Focus Group Meetings were organized in these three provinces of Turkey. Figure 1. Three provinces selected for focus groups in Turkey: İstanbul, Muş and Hatay. (“SEiSMiC -­‐ Turkish National Network Poster”, Tüzin Baycan, Veysi Altıntaş, May 2014) 6 In each city; the venues, climate, event-­‐organizing aspects were different whereas single format for the focus groups are applied successfully. Welcoming speech given and introductory presentation made by the national project coordinator, Prof. Dr. Tüzin Baycan. Then a small lecture on the methodology introduced by the moderator, Ulaş Akın. In İstanbul and Muş meetings there were two tables depending on the number of participants, whereas in Hatay the number of tables for the participants was increased to three. Three meetings were successfully executed in June 2014. First meeting held on June 19th in İstanbul located in North West of Turkey. Second meeting organized on June 24th in Muş, located in the Eastern part of Turkey. There was no direct flight to Muş from İstanbul, so the team transferred flight from and to Ankara in order to go to the meeting places out of İstanbul. Project team went to third destination and organized focus group meeting on June 26th in the Province of Hatay located in the South, without coming back to İstanbul, just after Muş meeting. 69 people addressed in total out of which 55 attended the meetings and became active participants, in total 33 men and 22 women. The places, numbers and genders of attendance in individual discussion groups are the following: 1st Focus Group Place İstanbul 2nd Focus Group 3rd Focus Group Muş Hatay 22 participants Total 16 participants 17 participants M/W 10 women/6 men 5 women/12 men 7 women/15 men İstanbul meeting held at İTÜ (İstanbul Technical University) Social Club located in Maçka, a central place in the city, where participants came by their own transport. Place of the meeting changed at the very last moment, but the new venue was a larger room where participants found place to stand up and meet each other at the same time socialize by eating snacks and drinking tea, coffee, water, etc. Muş meeting held in the roof terrace of a hotel located in the city center. Like İstanbul, all participants came by their own transportation mode. The location changed when arrived to the venue, the former alternative was in the basement with limited space, no daylight and no fresh air observed. Then it was decided to move on the roof terrace. Snacks and tea corner set up in the meeting place, curtains closed by manual ways. Hatay meeting organized at the Antakya City Club (AŞK – Antakya Şehir Kulübü), again located at the central place in the city. Like the other meetings, participants came by themselves, snacks and beverage served. The venue has its own equipment, ready set-­‐up made things worked perfect. 7 Invited participants as stakeholders were selected according to the SEiSMiC rules and recommendations of the core team. Representatives from local and central governments, universities, civic society organizations were the target group. Beside these representatives of different institutions, ordinary people such as housewives, students, small business people invited. Gender balance of participants took into account as well. The lists of participants for the three focus group meetings are given at the Appendix of this report. Common Agenda of Focus Group Meetings can be seen below. 13:30 Opening and Introducing Agenda 13:40 Presentations: SEiSMiC Project and Focus Group Methodology 14:00 PART I – “SEiSMiC: Transformation of Cities” Discussion Within Work Groups Presenting Work Group Results 16:00 Tea and Coffee Break 16:30 PART II – “SEiSMiC Turkey Network Structure” Discussion Within Work Groups Presenting Work Group Results General Evaluation: Summary 18:00 Final Remarks, Future Meeting and Closing 8 1.4 Conclusions The focus group meetings were quite fruitful in terms of the outputs. There were 916 ideas written totally in which 544 of them from the first part about future of the cities, and 372 of them about how participants assess the SEiSMiC Project. Table 1 shows how many ideas generated by focus groups regarding the first and the second parts of the meetings organized in three locations. Table 1. Number of Ideas Generated by Focus Groups P A R T I P A R T I I Objectives and Benefits Looking Ahead 2040 PLACEs Framework Failure Criteria Grand Radical Innovative Lessons Individual Urban Individual Urban Individual Urban Challenges Change Approach Learned İSTANBUL 40 31 23 23 21 16 18 28 16 19 HATAY 81 64 46 37 19 32 23 18 19 26 MUŞ 74 44 42 39 28 11 21 13 27 17 195 139 111 99 68 59 62 59 62 62 TOTAL When we go into the details of the ideas generated by the first part of the focus groups meetings; 195 ideas for grand challenges, 139 ideas for radical change factors, 111 ideas for innovative approaches and 99 ideas for best practices written and discussed in total. For the second part of the focus group meetings; 68 individual and 59 urban context ideas generated about objectives and benefits of the SEiSMiC identified. About the project framework, participants wrote and debated 62 individual and 59 urban context idea generated. Number of success and failure criteria calculated as 62 individual and 62 urban contexts. 600
500
400
Lessons
Learned
300
Innova>ve
Approach
Radical
Change
200
Grand
Challenges
100
0
ISTANBUL
HATAY
MUŞ
TOTAL
Figure 2. Distribution of the number of ideas by category in the first part Figure 2 shows the distribution of the number of ideas generated per topic in the first part of the focus group meetings. 9 Second part of the meeting was aimed to provide feedback about the SEiSMiC Project from the participants and totally 373 ideas generated. Distribution of the number of ideas at the second part according to the three questions raised can be seen in Figure 3. The number of ideas generated was higher in Hatay comparing to other two cities. 400 300 Failure Criteria Framework Benesits 200 100 0 İSTANBUL HATAY MUŞ TOTAL Figure 3. Distribution of the number of ideas by category in the second part Total benefits were counted 137 ideas, total framework ideas were 121 and total success and failure criteria ideas were counted as 124. The distribution of the number of those ideas could be seen in Figure 4 based on locations of the focus groups. Figure 4 shows the whole picture of the number of ideas per question generated at both the first and the second parts. Distribution of the Total 916 Ideas by Categories Failure Criteria, 124 Grand Challenges, 195 Framework, 121 Radical Change, 139 Benesits, 127 Lessons Learned, 99 Innovative Approach, 111 Figure 4. Distribution of the number of ideas in total 10 From the qualitative side, regarding the first part of the discussion, several umbrella topics were identified at the reporting phase. These topics emerged relatively consistently in all three focus groups’ discussions and can be considered as the most important issues in Turkey at national level. Participants are not guided or told to group their ideas on purpose in order to less intervene how they structured their thinking and debate. In some tables academicians intended to group the ideas. Therefore, overall classification carried out at the reporting phase. These umbrella issues classified and distributed according to the each small sessions. It can be seen that not all topics discussed in all sessions. Issues covered per topic for the first part of the focus group can be seen at the table below. Table 2. Issues Covered in the First Part of the Meetings Issues Covered Agriculture Climate Cultural and Natural Heritage Earthquake Risk Environment Institutional Capacity Migration and Immigration Planning Political Stability and Climate Public Health Construction and Real Estate Social Norms & Cultural Events Tourism Transportation Urban Economics Urban Governance and Civic Society Urban Green Systems Urban Growth Urban Space Quality Waste Management, Energy & Utilities Women and Youth Grand Challenges Radical Change Innovative Approach Lessons Learned X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Issues like “urban governance”, “institutional capacity”, “transportation”, “waste management, energy and utilities”, and “cultural and natural heritage” are heavily discussed and ideas generated continuously. 11 2. Focused Results: Looking Ahead 2040 In this part of the focus group meetings, participants were asked to focus on four topics about their urban environment by long-­‐term period of the year 2040. 2.1 Grand Challenges The participants were asked to answer the Question of; “What are the most important challenges for you in your city until 2040?” 195 ideas and topics were written as areas for grand challenges. Brief summary is as follows: Migration and Immigration Participants raised both migration in rural to urban context and immigration from the third countries especially from Syria in recent years. Participants from Hatay specifically named the boundary problems, uncontrolled and uncertain conditions as well as societal impacts of the immigration. Also integration of immigrants with cultural differentiations heavily addressed. In İstanbul, participants raised the issue of internal migration in Turkey and immigration from Syria. In Muş, participants underlined that migration from Muş to other big cities has been driven by forced eviction in the last decades. The counter-­‐migration (going back home) has become an issue in order to maintain and to develop local human resources and capacities. Transportation In all cities, participants raised the congestion problem. In some cities, the lack of transport specific studies and planning highlighted. Although three locations have significant scale adequacy differences, transport is an issue concerned for the year 2040. Inner city transport systems, use of bikes as urban transport mode, accessibility and public transport were the keywords of participants. Car parking also indicated as one of the major challenges. Urban transport systems should welcome the disadvantaged groups as well according to participants. Cultural and Natural Heritage Participants addressed the urban cultural heritage needs to be much more taken into account in terms of maintenance and usage and it should be linked to urban development agenda. Some participants said that the implementations on conserving the cultural heritage is not enough and sometimes not so sustainable. Especially in Muş, cultural heritage is demolished systematically whereas in other cities there is a positive direction of restoration and revitalization efforts. 12 Tourism Tourism as a sector addressed in all cities. For Istanbul, tourism demand is over the supply and the concern is how to develop smartly in that respect. For Hatay, very special and unique multi-­‐cultural heritage in the World is not fully used for tourism, where participants also highlighted the negative sides of such development giving the example of Venice. For Muş, tourism has just started with Armenians who have being visited their grandparents’ places. Cultural and natural as well as economic heritage is not used at all. For instance, quality of grapes and wine production used to compete with Bordeaux wines lost this competitiveness at the moment. Agriculture Low performance of agricultural production as well as poor marketing network rose as an issue by the participants. The potential of geography, hydrography and land with inherited originalities; agriculture is the essential sector for the year 2040. For instance Muş has the second largest plain of Turkey just after Konya and the performance is highly below. It is strange to see that the city and its region encounter as the poorest and the least developed region. For all cities, agricultural lands are used as new urban development areas. Urban Space Quality The lack of live performance venues, street artists, colorful built environment, great outdoors such as squares, monuments and sculptures are indicated as urban space quality problems for the year 2040. Planning Agricultural lands turned into urban development and this is a major issue in all three cities and regions. Participants linked the issues of informal housing to new development on agricultural lands. It is not the only place for new housing rather to be more intelligent to come up with hands-­‐on planning. The administrative structures of cities are diverse. For instance in Hatay, the lack of planning has been stated as a major issue that results with the temporary conditions affecting building permissions. The lack of city-­‐scale master planning, revision of existing provincial environmental plan and lower scale planning were also highlighted. Not all participants agreed, in some points some participants criticized especially revisions on city plans and were not found sufficient enough according to others. Participants also stressed that planning should take into account the local culture and people’s needs. Others highlighted the not-­‐well-­‐ordered building and street forms. Developers want to develop high rise buildings at the city centers. 13 Urban Green Systems Participants raised their comments and ideas on the need for more open and green spaces in their cities and living environments. Construction and Real Estate Increasing land and housing prices rose as one of the major concerns for the year 2040. İstanbul is becoming more and more attractive for the high-­‐income groups from other cities and internationals, where Istanbul Finance Center Project is accelerating this momentum. In Hatay, the Syrian immigration resulted with the price increase especially for the rental housing market. Not only low-­‐income but also mid-­‐ and high-­‐income groups from Syria have been settling without thinking on what the landowners ask as price, but go for much more. Earthquake Risk All three locations have seismic risks and the old building stock has low performance according to the expected future seismic movements. Participants addressed the issue of earthquake risk and asked for rehabilitation at building and street scales. Political Stability and Climate Stability at political level matters for almost all cities, vital economy in the West and normalized life in the East. Participants also said that “image of the city” plays a key role in the development process. Participants from border province of Hatay, stressed the risk of civil war even national war. Participants asked for more peace and tolerance at city scales. Urban Growth Related to the conservation of natural assets as well as agriculture, participants concerned what if such metropolitan development expands towards the villages and rural character places at the periphery. This brings the question of what are the citizens going to plant and to eat in the future? Women and Youth Participants raised the issue of the underage marriage and the lack of enough participation of women in economic and urban life. The conditions for women socially and economically are not well developed. Men occupy public spaces. Participants addressed increasing drug abuse in youth in Muş. Urban Governance and Civic Society Self-­‐local government was addressed as future urban governance system. Participants highlighted the conflict between the elected and the appointed urban managers. In addition to the existing formal governance systems, such as city councils and elected mayors, in some cities supportive mechanisms were established as an advisory function. Some of the participants concerned the quality of advisors to urban managers is a key aspect for the overall urban management performance. Non-­‐governmental organizations are not acting independently but more depend on other agendas. 14 Driving forces for the NGOs are political, ethnic, ideological, economically determined and coordinated out of the city. Participants addressed the risk of transition of the urban regeneration agenda towards personal interests rather than public interest. Waste Management, Energy and Utilities Participants addressed solid waste management as an issue. The techniques and methods were not welcomed in some cities. İstanbul is much progressed for managing the waste of 13.5 million of official residents and much more users; whereas other cities have serious concerns. Renewable energy resources should be much more comparing to the existing conditions. In Hatay where is designated as one of the major wind tribune locations in Turkey and major investments already took place, the issue comes in to another direction, where participants raised the negative aspects of wind tribunes. Water becomes a fundamental issue for the future of cities. For İstanbul there is a water shortage and the city demands more, on the other hand Hatay has serious water problem where the major river, Asi is becoming dried. Since the River of Asi is also one of the major symbol and the image of the city, the existing conditions are not satisfying. Participants asked for the completion of river basin rehabilitation and want to see the river alive, since at the moment the water level is extremely low. Almost in all cities participants asked for more developed and integrated urban infrastructure systems. Based on planning, maintenance and management of water, natural gas and electricity; the lack of coordination results with poor and expensive infrastructure. Some smart comments such as, while dealing with architecture, utilities could be synchronized or vice-­‐a-­‐versa highlighted. Institutional Capacity Weak institutional capacity is another essential and fundamental aspect raised by the participants. The importance of “social capital” as a concept is also addressed. Participants said that stronger social capital enables more sustainable development. Especially the lack of knowledge, skills and the qualified human resources are critical issues in the provinces out of İstanbul. It is mentioned that “working together culture” and cooperation is weak. Some participants concerned that some urban managers looking at the issues from an ideological perspective, which is perceived as a problem. 15 Climate Existing climate conditions should be taken into account in development efforts. Participants highlighted that each locality has its own characteristics influencing their urban economy and social life. Hatay is one of the windy locations in Turkey, on the one hand it helps the livability in the city in hot summers, on the other hand the volume of wind tribune investments go crazy. In Muş, cold winters and snow itself is a major barrier for agricultural production as well as maintaining the basic urban services. For İstanbul there is a three-­‐climates regime exists but the challenge is a change towards a semi-­‐tropical climate. At the day of the focus group meeting in İstanbul, the first major tornado hit the city with unusual hail in mid summer. Picture 1. One of the Focus Group Tables in Muş, June 2014. 16 2.2 Areas for Radical Change The participants were asked to answer the Question of; In which areas do you see the need for a radical change? 139 ideas and topics were written as areas for radical change. Migration and Immigration Stopping migration to big cities addressed as one of the most important factors for radical change. Increasing population and the lack of resources create serious problems. Participants proposed fostering social and economic diversification policies as a radical change to avoid migration from small districts of cities such as Yayladağı, Hassa, Altınözü in Hatay. Transportation Almost all cities’ participants indicated that transport is the major area for a radical change. Within this topic some participants became more specific such as marine transportation as well as rail systems for inner-­‐city transport addressed as a radical area for change. Comfortable transport was another topic. An interesting point was the slow-­‐
traffic for inner city as a transport policy. Biking was also indicated as an area for radical change. Cultural and Natural Heritage Cultural heritage policies addressed as one of the radical change points. Participants criticized inefficient urban conservation and preservation policies and especially the untouched historic buildings creating a bad city image. Another aspect was intangible heritage mainly inter-­‐cultural marriage routines. Participants focused on the existing non-­‐integrative inter-­‐cultural marriage norms creating barriers for social cohesion as one of the important change points. Another dimension related to cultural heritage as a radical change, was the need for change of TOKI (Mass Housing Administration that has ultimate power to build almost any function to anywhere in Turkey), namely to be taken into account the city identity. 17 Tourism Participants concerned that focusing on regions rather than provinces and cities could create competitive and comparative advantage for benefiting from tourism demand and potentials. Regional tourism branding, marketing and operations could be a good starting point for a radical change in tourism. Agriculture Agricultural policies are the areas for radical change according to the participants. Muş Plain as the second largest one in Turkey was addressed to have “modern” agriculture that refers to the contemporary techniques was proposed as a radical change. On the other hand other, participants came to the point from another side and proposed that radical change is organic agriculture for Muş Plain with its own heritage and it could become competitive in the global markets. Urban Space Quality Open and green space quantity and quality addressed by many participants as radical change factor. Some participants especially highlighted the access to the open and green spaces as another keyword for a radical change. Planning Participants said that in order to solve the existing and future problems, a comprehensive planning platform would be essential for a radical change. This is highly associated with the institutional capacity focuses on the mechanisms. Some participants stressed the city plans should be revised by taking the silhouette effect into account. In Hatay, participants fostered the local economic development planning would be an important radical change in order to best-­‐use the existing economic advantages such as being the second national logistics hub with 6 organized industry zones, diverse tourism activities. Some participants focused on the existing inefficiency of planning mechanisms that do not take the public interest into account. Developing a working supra scale/macro planning is also believed to be a radical change factor, where at the moment process is fast and not so preservative. Another radical change area about planning is related to the agricultural lands. New developments are located in such productive soils by planning, which should be vice-­‐a-­‐versa. Participants believed that the real radical change is at the urban policy dimension. 18 Energy and Utilities Hydro electrical power plants became a major issue in the last decade in terms of over-­‐certification and uncontrolled spatial distribution. This is resulted in sectorial policies do not take into account the spatial impacts on urban and rural areas. Participants stated that these investments should not be in and around their provinces and they believe that it could be a radical change to avoid negative impacts of such energy investments. Renewable energies are also a radical change area as participants from all cities are using roof PV panels for water heating purposes. PV applications are thought to be a radical change topic. In addition, some participants told that research on radiation effects of wind tribunes for electricity generation would be a radical change. Urban Green Systems Rehabilitation of Asi River assessed by participants as a radical change for the urban green systems including environmental, biological, ecological as well as esthetic aspects. Construction and Real Estate Participants addressed the system, structure, relations and legislation about construction sector was one of the very crucial areas for radical change. Construction sector is a driving force for urban economy but also creates pressure on urban agricultural lands and cultural heritage. Earthquake Risk The preparations and actions for earthquake risk addressed as one of the radical change aspects. Majority of the existing building stock is not resistant for such seismic movements. This requires a regeneration process. Participants stressed that within the existing planning framework; earthquake sensitive lands should be carefully designated as non-­‐development zones. Political Stability and Climate Participants proposed different change areas based on their location. While the participants in Istanbul addressed over-­‐population and migration, the participants in Hatay emphasized the critical issue of Syrian migrants and uncontrolled immigration that create significant urban quality of life problems. Participants also said to solve the international conflicts at the national level would be a real radical change in order to eliminate the negative perceptions. Not only the societal challenges but also the risk of being in a war as a border province for Hatay creates societal stress. Border security is another highlighted radical change aspect. When we listen to the participants from Muş, they mentioned the engagement of people and pluralistic participation for the “resolution” process addressing Kurdish geography and people in Turkey is a major area for a radical change. The current stability has created positive conditions in order to have a solid progress, to engage people for the next steps. 19 Urban Governance and Civic Society Participants discussed and proposed the engaged citizens to their cities by creating a sense of urban belonging. Therefore each of three locations has their own complication with that respect. Istanbulite, people of Istanbul as a concept “Istanbulluluk” proposed as a keyword for a radical change referring the good old days associated with supra urban culture where all newcomers take it as a norm for integration. In Hatay, the geo-­‐spatial aspects of identity and belonging differ. City center called Antakya coming from ancient Antiochia (the ancient city of Antioch in ancient regions of Pamphilia and Pisida in South West Turkey), and the second urban identity is in İskenderun, coming from the ancient city of Alexandrette located on the waterfront of the province. Hatay is the name of the province and for the above mentioned reasons even the name itself is a barrier for sense of belonging at the city scale. Some participants clearly stated that the form of governance needs a radical change. Dual character of appointed and elected officials’ management actually the transition of adopted French central public administrative system said to be inefficient. Participants linked the economic performance and governance in that respect. Some other participants said that the current metropolitan city management/administration legislation is a radical change aspect. Institutional Capacity Participants indicated that learning, education and training systems should be structured by own city needs; own resources as well as own urban dynamics. Democratization was another keyword addressing the performance of the institutional capacity. And some other participants linked the institutional capacity with urban governance by addressing the urban decision-­‐making system is the area for a radical change for the year 2040. Participants importantly stressed that “vocational training” is an essential step for radical change for the future addressing cross cutting issues of employment, urban economics, youth and gender issues as well as functioning and activated urban institutional capacity. Participants stressed the importance of “language education” would be a crucial change factor, English for more internationalized economy and understanding, also Kurdish, Turkish and Arabic for providing better access to urban services. 20 Public Health More developed public health via better and effective education support is a radical change topic according to the participants in the less developed cities. Structural transformation in health systems is believed to be a radical change for the future. Women and Youth Participants addressed the dealing and understanding the “underage marriage” and “blockage of education of young girls” phenomena are big steps for a radical change. Future research should address this topic in order to come up with sense-­‐making and hands-­‐on policies towards participation of women in social and economic life. The importance of this issue is not limited with the underdeveloped regions but also transition geographies such as Hatay and big cities like Istanbul. Research coordination and collaboration beyond comfort zone of researchers is addressed as the success of this radical change momentum. Another innovative idea came from the participants to link the research agenda on “ecology” and “women”. Picture 2. One of the Focus Group Tables in İstanbul, June 2014. 21 2.3 Innovative Approach The participants were asked to answer the Question of; Q: What would be a new or an alternative way of responding to the above-­‐
mentioned challenges? 111 ideas and topics were written as areas for innovative approach. Urban Governance and Civic Society Although there is a weak legal framework about the participatory decision-­‐
making, recent legislation strengthens participation in urban agenda. Local authorities are expected to monitor the activities of the inhabitants and the establishment of the system enables wider participatory decision process. Supportive ideas came as the city's management should enable the more effective use of Information Technology for participation in order to have more local actors in the decision making processes. Some participants proposed Councils for Neighborhood management and coordination, also the lack of coordination among services are highlighted. Civil initiatives built-­‐in neighborhoods contribute solutions to problems with face-­‐to-­‐
face communication. Solution of the problem should be asked to the suffering ones because they know the best. In order to solve the problems, counterparts should come together in an egalitarian environment. In that respect the creation of a sectorial platform has been also proposed. Act of democratic platforms must be created before taking actions not afterwards. All the local actors (NGOs, public representatives, public) can create a platform that consists of a controversial city issues. Increasing participation in the decision-­‐making processes would lead to a change. Participants underlined that the feed-­‐back mechanisms should be developed and city administrators should ask to citizens about their ideas, not to take decisions imposed from the Capital. In the similar direction, decision-­‐making and management mechanisms proposed to be transferred to local governments. Also the idea of legal aspects gives broader powers to local centers proposed and Regional Development Agencies should be established as the provision of local district councils. Participatory selection of the projects by public using social media platforms such as Twitter, SMS rating has been proposed. In each city, the city council should be authorized for the creation of an absolute solution to local problems and it should be transformed into an organization active at that point. Some participants said: “We need more involved NGOs!” Another idea came, as a proposal, Gulf of Iskenderun and its surrounding should have a new administrative structure. Since the city is a strategic institution, it should be urgently reconstructed and an Urban Management Governance Model should be developed. 22 Institutional Capacity Need for Professional Approach for the public sector, namely local and central governments and their bodies highlighted by participants. Some participants said: “Public institutions’ managers elected by the people are not efficient enough. People demand from the municipality and from the governor to be more professional especially for financial and technical aspects of urban projects”. Another idea came as, people should demand from the Members of Parliament to have laws that ensure technocrats could become the public managers. Also people demand a new legislation that increases penalties applied to the public managers. Joint work and cooperation culture should be developed according to participants. Having trained and qualified personnel at the public sector to overcome the problems is essential. The lack of qualified personnel in institutions should be solved and financial measures should be developed. In universities, setting up research centers that deal with the city dynamics is important. Urban Economics Participants identified several issues about urban economics, one is about more equal welfare distribution, and the other one is about investors who need to be more encouraged. Quality of Life in Turkey should be increased. More business area creation is needed. For the city of Istanbul, Working / Living areas should be evenly distributed between the Asian and the European banks. Some participants indicated how to benefit more from the EU Projects. At the national scale a 'Poly-­‐
centric' development model proposed to be adopted. Public-­‐university-­‐private sector cooperation is essential for sustainable economy. And the role of trust, togetherness, information sharing, and financial as well as social forms of capital are the keys. In that respect developing a culture of collaboration is important. Increasing diversity in rural areas, improving the quality of products to produce and implement projects rather researching. Products can be sold in the market and more market place is needed. Creation of agricultural areas and areas of projected range of products suitable coding is another idea for fostering local economy. Local products, for instance Muş tulips and grapes, should be brought into the brand because they are unique and highly competitive at national and even international sphere. In addition, agro-­‐based industries should be developed. Cooperation and exchange of views between manufacturer-­‐public-­‐
private sectors should be developed. More to come together for a common policy should be created. 23 Planning In the realm of planning, participants advocated that Environmental Master Plan of the city should be generated by a committee, not by a company, they must be modified and revised according to the requirements of the public interest. In small cities production and implementation of the master plan is urgent. Another issue, changes in zoning plans should be done by a qualified majority. A system should be created with the principles of transparency and well functioning control mechanism establishment made by unbiased, scientific, skilled people. Another proposal was creating “Quality of Life Action Plans” at the local level as well as managerial dimensions. Reinforcement for Building and Accessibility Standards Regulation has been proposed. Planning has to prevent development on agricultural land. Development of new structures should be done according to the law. Renewal of the cadastral information for the districts and villages within the metropolitan system is fundamental. Cultural and Natural Heritage Old buildings’ renewal process, non-­‐state support structure or the PPPs (public private partnership) especially the BOT method (built-­‐operate-­‐transfer) should be restored and building inventory should be developed. In order to address the question of “identity” in urban transformation, urban fabric should be taken into account in the process. University, city and people along with TOKI (Mass Housing Administration of Turkey) were declared an archaeological park in the neighborhood in Hatay, would be the new area of employment. Nature parks and waterfalls need to be protected in the recreational areas in Harbiye, Hatay. Realization of the marriages between different cultures in society may help to change negative public opinion by organizing meetings, events, opinion leaders and families making persuasive speeches. Transportation Participants stressed improving access to roads and management of urban infrastructure. Some of the participants linked the traffic problem with unplanned urbanization. For the traffic management, the need for the traffic lights at the junctions of the city, light rail and bike paths as well as pavement rehabilitation has been proposed. Encouraging public transportation versus individual transportation should be an urban policy. 24 Environment In order to respond the new industrial investment demands, there is a need to prevent land filling for industrial estates. Iron and steel mills such as recycling of slag in road construction should be provided for the use of filling material. The new thermal power plant construction must be stopped that causes of pollution in the Gulf of İskenderun, Hatay. Strict measures need to be taken for the pollution threat the water resources. In Hatay, the Lake of Amik should be restored and brought back to life again. The participants proposed large-­‐scale awareness campaigns on environmental protection. Waste Management, Energy and Utilities More incentives for recycling are needed and in some cases it should be an obligation. Air pollution caused by using imported coal in power plants is a serious problem. Add to this, dams have environmental risks, should be mitigated. Women and Youth Participants mentioned the need for an awareness campaign about the under age marriages. A memorial forest should be cultivated in the name of child brides. Commissions for women, youth and related issues need to be established. Climate In Muş, conventional methods used for removal of heavy snow should be changed according to participants. New and more modern equipment could be used for such a need. Developing special equipment design for the local conditions (Muş specific) could be an effective solution. Picture 3. Two of the Focus Group Tables in Hatay, June 2014. 25 2.4 Lessons Learned and Best Practices The participants were asked to answer the Question of; Q: Which already existing best practices/initiatives of your city would be good starting points for a successful change? 99 ideas and topics were written as areas for best practices. Transportation Participants of Istanbul indicated that Successful Transportation Projects and improving infrastructure such as motorways and highways, usage of Airports, etc. are important. Marmaray, a more than a century ago engineering vision realized. Expansion of Public Transportation privileged way for BRT system, namely Metrobus has become an efficient mode of public transport. Smart ticket application called Akbil, and later on İstanbul Card that allows almost all means of transport mode in public transport. Urban Transport Integration Project that allows multi-­‐modal integration given as successful example. Development of Mobile Information Systems in Transportation is another important breaking point. İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality’s Mobile Traffic Application, dissemination of intelligent systems, Mobile Phones and Station Info are some of the good examples. Cultural and Natural Heritage Istanbul's Own Characteristics indicated as an asset. Restoration of cultural assets like “Habib-­‐i Najjar Mosque” and “Beyazit-­‐i-­‐Bastami” in Hatay was a great example as the city has efforts to protect cultural assets (inventory studies, books, geographical indications studies, determination of Hatay logo). Museum of the hotel construction as well as thematic museums (soap, agriculture, medicine, aroma and Hatay state museum) and having an Archaeological Museum are also good examples. State support for the employment of workers is another good example given. “Accessible Tourism Project” and “Improving Disabled Access” are also two major examples according to participants. And restoration of historical monuments such as Murat Bridge being used for tourism is one the best practices with positive impacts. For instance in Muş, 33 NGOs formed a civic platform to protect the old houses and to improve the quality of places. 26 Muş Cultural and Natural Heritage Protection Society for History and Arts has collaborated with some national and international NGOs in order to work on the future of the province (documentary preparation, preparation of reports). Natural assets such as water resources and Muş Plain, the presence of the Lake Hamurpet are also some good examples. In Muş, one of the public restoration studies of the Church in Çengilli is a good development. The opening of the new museum, as well as Payas Sokullu M. Pasha Complex Restoration is also mentioned as a good example. Add to this, specific issues such as; tourism for beliefs and religion, food culture, local customs and traditions, and protection of the bird called “toy” highlighted by participants. Urban Governance and Civic Society Participants identified several issues related to urban governance and civic society actions such as; increasing quality of municipal services as well as social municipal projects, and successful housing projects, e-­‐ service systems are good starting points according to participants. Some mega projects’ impacts on quality of life, social and educational services like free book distribution and health care improvement projects were also highlighted. In Hatay, SEiSMiC Project and Hatay Small Nation Assembly seemed as a potential collaboration to reach a wider audience and to access to a common purpose. Some participants stated that SEiSMiC Project itself is a great starting point. In Muş, existence of recently elected women mayors of Bulanık and Varto municipalities gave hope to people for women empowerment in functioning of local democracy and politics. In districts of urban renewal projects; increasing participation of the Neighborhood Organizations and CBOs (Community Based Organization) has been found inspiring by participants for future projects. Existing of organizations such as; • “KOSGEB”, SME promotion institute, •
“DOĞAKA”, Eastern Anatolian Regional Development Agency, •
“MUKADDER”, Women’s Association of Muş, were found important and positive. 27 Institutional Capacity Participants highlighted issues about institutional capacities by refering Vocational Training Courses, Techno-­‐parks (university-­‐industry collaborations including “KOSGEB”, SME center within the universities), the universities, “İŞKUR”, public institute encourages and subsidies small and medium-­‐sized investments. Updated cadastral studies, and integration of Urban Information System have been also mentioned as good starting points. Agriculture Participants indicated the issues related to agriculture such as uncontaminated soil and air, water to be directed to organic farming, untouched and not-­‐polluted nature and cultural structure. Introducing the development and marketing of organic products make sense in that respect. Organic farming is a great opportunity according to participants. Development of viticulture, production of sericulture and the resumption of viticulture were declared as positive. Two positive environmental and economic sustainability news from Muş have been mentioned as Muş Plain, the second largest plain of Turkey has an irrigation system and a few apparel manufacturers started production. Social norms and cultural events Participants mentioned several social norms and cultural events as good starting points, such as; teachings from neighbors and cultural commitments, cultural values and events (Hamurpet Lake Festival, Carnivals, Tulip Festival, Festival of Şenyayla, Muş Promotion Days in Ankara, Workshop on Educational Problems of Muş). Some social norms believed that positive and productive such as “imece”, an Anatolian norm of hospitality and cooperation shapes the structure, values and dispositions to get things done. Hatay’s “Choir of Civilizations” incorporates Muslim, Christian and Jewish hymns, is another unique value. “Kurdish” as a language is still widely used and “Dengbêjlik” is a local socio-­‐cultural inter-­‐
personal relation form. Despite the past bans and assimilation of the Kurdish language used as a common language, establishment of the Kurdology Department in the Muş Alparslan University stated as a good starting point. 28 3. Focused Results: SEiSMiC Framework The second part of the focus group meetings addresses the Seismic Project itself and participants were asked to focus on the ideas, pre-­‐assumptions, perceptions and issues concerned that would have impact on the success of the Project at individual and city levels. 3.1 Objectives and Benefits The participants were asked to answer the Question of; Q: What are the central objectives and benefits for SEiSMiC partners – beyond official SEiSMiC project goals? The answers were discussed, written and collected in two parts; first at individual and second at urban contexts. 3.1.1 Individual Context Participants discussed the benefits for the project at the individual level by highlighting the keywords such as importance of social interaction, mutual learning, dissemination, social capacity development, being aware from other cities, communication, social responsibility, bringing different perspectives to the problem, experience and knowledge sharing, awareness, sharing problems, contribution to social life. Some participants stated the benefits of the holistic thinking to better understand the relationship between different urban issues, as well as contribution to the City where the individuals live. As part of this perspective, issues could be turned into opportunities. Participants declared that they have enjoyed the meeting and looking forward to take part in the national network. The focus group synergy enabled a social gain. Some participants said, “ I can freely express my ideas in an environment of a workshop”. The participatory thinking and acting as well as being listened provide a great feedback. Some participants also saw the benefits meeting with new people and socializing. “It will be nice for me to meet with people from Hatay”, says one of the participants from Muş, emphasizing learning from each other. Other says, “It is a great benefit to me to meet with friends”. Again, it was a sign of the role of socializing. “Learning different ideas of individuals that allow cross-­‐learning” written by a participant. Harmonization of different and even contrasting ideas and opinions is a great thing according to another one. One participant clearly mentioned how essential to learn from each other; “Studies, obtained from other provinces and countries, a synthesis of studies performed and to try to ensure the viability of the Muş”. 29 Participants assessed the focus group meeting as the Participation spirit has evolved, as well as horizons, and their perspectives’ developed. “The peace of mind of doing something useful” says one of them. Other stressed the importance of the benefits of “shared vision and goals”. Some participants saw the benefits of providing guidance to give recommendations, revealing the city's unique assets. The city's socio-­‐economic, political and cultural situation has been introduced as an important issue. Participants saw the opportunity by sharing the problems identified in the meeting with local administrators. By doing so, ensuring the participation of local administrators’ sense of belonging to the city would be better. Participants declared the benefits of seeing similar problems in other cities to see how these problems have been resolved. Picture 4. İstanbul, Beyoğlu part of the old the city center in the Golden Horn. 3.1.2 Urban Context At the urban context, participation to SEiSMiC project would be beneficiary to address different learning needs, to build a nationwide network, to help social capacity development, to understand Best Practices in developed countries, to enable transmission of applications and learning, to utilize of funds and credits for projects. Core benefit announced as to live in a better city and to leave children a better city. 30 Project seemed having the potential to come up with a productive solution on conflict areas, as well as bringing international dimension to information sharing with transnational cultural interactions. International similarities and differences may reveal creative solutions. This will also broaden the understanding of different management systems and learning, priority and severity of the city in different feature topics. Project perceived as a platform for drawing a Roadmap, sharing experience, creating awareness and publicizing urban problems as well as enabling effective use of resources. Participants discussed the possibility of solving problems with the implementation of the ideas. Another expectation is public resources to be used effectively and efficiently. Comparative cases of migration policies in other cities will bring a positive perspective to local unmanaged conditions that could have a potential to be reversed in the future. Each sector will find itself a place in the SEiSMiC structure to create an environment where they could express themselves. The project offers an opportunity to develop joint projects addressing common problems and to find alternative solutions. Due to the link with the JPI Urban Europe, participants stated that if the solutions for problems can be shared with other cities and countries, then the outcomes of the Project could be used scientifically. A step-­‐by-­‐step approach to solve the problems may help the implementation of projects. Via SEiSMiC Project, local and national authorities could be notified to local problems, their solutions and the implementation of solutions. Some participants mentioned that Regional Development Agencies could benefit from the scope of the project; Provincial Authorities can take the good examples for the urban solutions; Government and municipal representatives could be focused on relevant issues. Strategy and policy development process is highly affecting the performance of the agencies that have resources and funding opportunities. Looking at abroad with our own problems that give rise to the possibility to a comparison. An inter-­‐city information exchange is providing a chance to see different good examples in other cities that will give an opportunity for forward thinking. SEiSMiC perceived as a stimulant project for City activities to increase synergies between different sectors of society (NGOs, universities, public institutions’ representatives, etc.). This stimulation or catalyst function is expected to trigger contemporary urbanism in practice to be transmitted to the future generations, to improve the protection of the environment. The city will increase the interaction with the other cities that learn from each other. For instance participants said, “If well prepared projects can be realized, then Hatay will win”. Diversity and real multi-­‐culturalism in Hatay can be learned in other cities. Participants believed that SEiSMiC Project would also help promotion of their cities by attracting national and international attention. One of the motivations for Hatay is to become a role model with the city's natural and cultural values and assets. In that respect, a collaborative approach enables the development and persistence. Disruptions in local government adversely affect the city's economic and social aspects. 31 3.2 Framework The participants were asked to answer the Question of; What is the most suitable framework related to network structure, network participants and cooperation rules? In this part, suggestions and comments of the participants linked to the desired SEiSMiC structure, actors and rules of cooperation/functioning are represented. The answers were discussed, written and collected in two parts; first at individual and second at urban contexts. 3.2.1 Individual Context Different socio-­‐economic groups included in a platform will provide the benefits of information flow. Becoming an actor for the solutions to problems in the process would be possible. There are good examples of networks such as “Eurobin” in Bağcılar, İstanbul that aims to integrate disadvantaged groups into society who are living in the county (the illiterate, socially excluded in the community, involved in crimes, etc.). Another network is called “ESKADA” in Esenler, İstanbul. ESKADA is Esenler Career Center that deals with employment of displaced people from Istanbul's different socio-­‐economically developed districts (Göktürk, Kemerburgaz, Sultangazi, Gazi Mahallesi, Kadıköy, Suadiye, etc.). Another network in Istanbul is ICIST (Istanbul Center for International Students). Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Department of Foreign Relations set up this center. Another project is in Hatay, namely “Cradle of Civilization”. Involvement of more people with multi-­‐cultural background in this network will reflect the reality in a more sensitive way. The Project’s process and outcomes need a connection with organizations that place investments in their development plans. According to a participant, every government agency and NGO stakeholders have to ensure that this project is useful. Focusing on specific institutions and sectors can be appealed by a wider audience. Muş could facilitate national and international networks to provide necessary technical supports needed. For instance, project activities could contribute to the development of the fine arts in the province. Muş could build a network and push forward its capacity. 32 In Muş, Tumulus mounts and hundreds of findings in archaeological excavations revealed. This could be an opportunity to introduce this heritage to the world by the SEiSMiC Project. According to the participants’ personal and individual perspectives, the following actors should be captured within the project; • NGOs Protecting Natural and • Presidents of the Chamber of Cultural Assets, Commerce and Industry, • NGOs for Education, • City Council, • Local Actors, • Provincial Directorates of Agriculture, • Teachers, • Provincial Directorate of Culture • Strategists, and Tourism, • Chauffeurs’ Association, • Provincial Directorate of • Minibus Drivers, Education, • Handicraft, • District Municipalities’ • Artists, Managers (Varto and Bulanık • Contractors, from Muş), • Street Vendors, • Associations, • Volunteers, • Unions, • Men in Coffee Houses, • University and High School • Investors, Students, • Financial Sector, •
Disadvantaged Groups, • Tourism Sector, • Political Actors, • Real Estate Sector, • Representatives from each • Muhtars (Village Headmen), districts. • Municipalities, • Representatives from the • Chamber of Commerce, District Municipalities, • Chambers of Industry, 33 3.2.2 Urban Context Some participants re-­‐conceptualized “the most happy cities” and “the most unhappy cities”, “the touristic cities”, etc. to be involved in the network. Participants from Muş specifically mentioned that, Muş, the geographic origin of tulips where Dutch brought to their country, could host a local economic activity for tulips. According to one of the participants, universities should be used as much as possible for regional development. The dissemination for the wider public is also important. Some participants focused on renewable energy studies need to be part of the project. In order to sustain the project, some participants proposed to set up local institutions. Participants stated that, the following actors needed to be captured within the project; • Chamber of Commerce, • NGOs, • Chamber of Muhtars, • Industry Representatives, • Chamber of City Planners, • Women's Associations, • Chamber of Architects, • Individual Initiatives, • Chamber of Engineers, • Associations of Disabled People, • Mayors, • Food Industry and Promoters, • Political parties have MPs, • Villages, • Tribal and religious leaders, • Neighboring Towns and Provinces, • Disadvantaged workers in different sectors • Labor Unions, • Informal Sector, • Initiatives for the Lost Professions, • Neighborhood Forums, • Local Media.
• Neighborhood Associations, 34 Participants indicated the Project should interact with less developed 15 provinces in Turkey. Some participants stressed the importance of regional level participation, namely the Black Sea Region and the Aegean Region. Some participants mentioned the names of the provinces to be included. Eskişehir and Mersin are two provinces mentioned more than one participant. List of provinces of Turkey that participants mentioned to be part of the project are ; • Adıyaman, • Eskişehir, • Rize, • Antep, • Kilis, • Silivri, • Artvin, • Konya, • Tunceli, • Batman, • Mardin, • Urfa, • Diyarbakır, • Mersin, • Van.
Picture 5. Anthiocia, the city center of Hatay Province of Turkey, June 2014. 35 3.3 Success and Failure Criteria The participants were asked to answer the Questions of; Which are the most important failure criteria and implementation risks? What must we and other actors do in order to ensure a grandiose flop? The answers were discussed, written and collected in two parts; first at individual, and second at urban contexts. 3.3.1 Individual Context Participants discussed the following statements about the success and failure of the SEiSMiC Project in Turkey: According to participants; “young people” should play an active role in creation of a common language. At the Inaugural Workshop in September a simple and plain language should be used so that everyone can easily understand. Importance of Feedback stressed again and again for concrete outcomes and the project continuity. Stable participation ensuring continuity is a must. While using Social Media the results can be announced. According to the participants failure comes by working only with the limited number of participants of the Focus Group. If specific groups impose the ideas of a person or a group, than this would harm the network and continuity of participation. Different actors would establish new links, said one participant whereas other mentioned; “If you do not call me again, I'd be frustrated”. According to participants, selfish and personal solutions lead to failure, and constructive communication leads to success, where personal behaviors are of critical importance. One participant said; “If we do not provide an inter-­‐agency cooperation there would not be enough capacity to transfer and evaluate the synergy of our contribution and this leads a failure.” The desired level of success cannot be reached without carrying out the project with public and institutions together. The desire and the need of patience to develop this network by communication with the actors of the cities should not be broken. One participant declared that political support for the project is a success factor; another participant mentioned that if public administrators are at the center, project might be damaged because of the political reasons. Questions should be clear if participants are expected to provide feedback continuously. 36 Opinions discussed in the tables by each groups. According to participants, reporting of the conclusions from the workshop is important. Short-­‐term results of the project would increase the motivation. Legal status of the project would be explained better. Broader participation may help the project realization becomes advocating the idea of the co-­‐existence of differences where everybody can express themselves freely. People are negotiating by talking and the common wisdom provides a positive gain. One of the most crucial feedbacks was ensuring adequate financing for the smooth execution of the project. Legal framework of the project should address the society’s need. One of the interesting statements of participants was; “Turkish leg of the SEiSMiC Project would be unable to achieve success, if the project approaches only from European perspective”. Other success criteria were focusing on historical and cultural urban fabric to sustain, to save the material resources, to transfer knowledge to the selected pilot provinces. Another indication for the success of the team is to be able to let people and cities work together. Failure comes with urban studies without serious preparation and not informing the people about the project. A failure or inability to provide participation comes with unpreparedness. According to participants, the project should capture the following aspects in order to reach the goals in a successful way; • We are, • Women, • Women's associations, • University, • NGOs, • People of different opinions, • Agricultural workers, • Imams, • Muş Alparslan University, • Tribal Representatives, • Students, • Opinion Leaders, • Individual participation, • Children, • Polygamists, • Disabled. 37 3.3.2 Urban Context According to participants, the project would fail if local governments would not interest it and ideas would not turn into action. If one city dominates, then failure comes with inadequate participation from other provinces, and conflicts between different representatives may occur. Within the network if one group imposes their ideas on the other, the steps of failure would be paved. The failure in providing feedback may lead to a “purposelessness perception” and this makes the project would not meet its objectives. The lack of participation of local actors, the absences of representatives from each district, the lack of communication between the representatives of the city are counted as some of the failure criteria. Some participants said that, outcomes couldn’t be transmitted to the relevant law enforcement authorities. If three provinces want to protect their own interests and do not mind the others, then this leads to failure. Mutual transfer of knowledge between İstanbul, Muş and Hatay is essential, according to participants. According to participants, the Project must include; shared decision-­‐making, participation of different socio-­‐economic groups, dialogue with other cities and countries, more participation from the city, collective action and lobbying. Recent development about the project should be periodically shared with the participants; such as meeting results. Communication with the participants would keep the project alive. Individual participation should be continuous, said by one of the participants. Best practices from each province where they overcome an urban problem, should be visited by others. Network's expansion and the coverage need to be improved. Otherwise, the network can be stuck indoors and isolated from the urban realities. Funding resources and local participation in meetings are necessary conditions for the success of the Project. Decision-­‐makers are under pressure to hold, guide and offer concrete alternatives is expected to be evolving into a platform that would trigger the success. In the short term, small projects could be successful; and will pave the road to larger projects. Micro steps would be the best to start finding solutions to the problems at the macro level. “Those who have the public interest and the interests of society are useful for the network”, said one of the participants. Project will contribute to reduce disparities between regions via cultural exchange projects as well as compliance with human and natural resources of the region and detection of the leading sectors. 38 Concrete steps for the problems should be identified and the priority should be designed with stakeholders. A preliminary study including city managers and Muhtars needs to be executed. Participants concerned with communication mentioned the importance of sharing, evaluation meetings, joint meetings, local coordination units, constant communication, follow-­‐ups and feedback, dissemination, e-­‐mail groups, social media (Facebook, twitter, etc.), national and local media coverage. Picture 6. Muş city center, Turkey, June 2014. 39 4. Appendix (Focus Group Participants) 4.1 İstanbul Focus Group Participants NAME INSTITUTION/ORGANIZATION/OCCUPATION Irmak Baycan Student, Erenköy Anadolu High School Tuvana Eyüboğlu Student, Beşiktaş Anadolu High School Ayşe Tiftikçi House Wife Meryem Tiftikçi House Wife Murat Özturan İstanbul Chamber of Commerce, Unit for Advanced Research İclal Dinçer Professor, Yıldız Technical University, Department of Urban and Regional Planning Ayşe Gökbayrak Deputy Director, İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Department of Urban Regeneration Nevra Gürsoy İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Department of Planning Timuçin Kurt Deputy Director, İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Department of EU and Istanbul Finance Center Tayfun Kahraman Chamber of City Planners Dilek Pekdemir Director, Cushman & Wakefield Real Estate & Insurance Serkan Korkmaz Arslan İstanbul Development Agency Edin Zaim Urban Vision Platform Canan Candan Urban Vision Platform Özlem Özdemir Student, İstanbul Technical University, Department of Urban and Regional Planning M. Fahri Sayın Civil Engineer, Sayın Construction Ltd. 40 4.2 Muş Focus Group Participants NAME INSTITUTION /ORGANIZATION/OCCUPATION Adem Köse Muş Provincial Special Authority Tacettin Okur Muş Provincial Special Authority Sadrettin Tunç Muş Provincial Special Authority Abdurrahman Barutçu Industrial Engineer Tuba Gür Muş Women’s Association Saniye Çetinbaş Muş Women’s Association Fuat Özkan Eastern Anatolia Development Agency, Muş Investment Support Office Oğuz Tuncay Görür Eastern Anatolia Development Agency, Muş Investment Support Office Kemal Kıranşan Research Assistant, Bingöl University, Department of Geography Cumhur Sur Association for Preserving the Natural and Cultural Assets of Muş Necmi Bulakçıbaşı Association for Preserving the Natural and Cultural Assets of Muş Turhan Sur Association for Preserving the Natural and Cultural Assets of Muş Neval Ancar Undergraduate Student, Muş Alparslan University, Department of Sociology Recep Kotan Provincial Director, Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology Atik Aslan Research Assistant, Muş Alparslan University, Department of Sociology Ayşe Güler City Councilor, Muş Municipality Deniz Kimyon Research Assistant, Muş Alparslan University, Department of Urban and Regional Planning 41 4.3 Hatay Focus Group Participants NAME INSTITUTION /ORGANIZATION/OCCUPATION Heysem Kantarcı Farmer Görkem Yüzer Teacher Kenan Kantarcı TMMOB (Union of Turkish Architects and Engineers) Hatay Provincial Coordination Council Edip Yıldız Chamber of Mechanical Engineers Serdar Çınar Eastern Mediterranean Development Agency Mert Nezih Rifaioğlu Assistant Professor, Mustafa Kemal University, Department of Urban and Regional Planning Nail Gökhan Karabulut Research Assistant, İstanbul Technical University, Department of Urban and Regional Planning İrem Zeren Sohboz Mining Engineer Vahip Sahil Architect, Former Mayor of Küçük Dalyan Papatya Bostancı Undergraduate Student, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Department of Urban and Regional Planning Şahabbeddin Arpacı Hatay Volunteers Association Mustafa Özal President, Association for Volunteers of Antakya Ecem Doğru Lawyer, Association of Council of Volunteers of Hatay Ahmet Tektaş Specialist, Eastern Mediterranean Development Agency Mehmet Güzelyurt Deputy Mayor of Defne Municipality Meryem Sürmeli Photographer Mehmet Perçemli Former Mayor of Maşuklu Municipality Adnan Arusoğlu Foundation for SMEs Managers and Members of Turkey Ercüment Kimyon Architect Bilge Çakır Assistant Professor, Mustafa Kemal University, Department of Urban and Regional Planning Pelin Öztürk City Planner Ayşegül Uğur Çıray Architect, Antakya Municipality 42