Analysis of Planning Decisions Subject To Litigation Through Game Theory Model: A Framing Based On An Example
Şehir ve Bölge Planlamada İleri Araştırmalar, Çetin Ekşioğlu Gözde Tahra, Editör, Yaz Yayınları, Afyonkarahisar, ss.60-85, 2024
- Yayın Türü: Kitapta Bölüm / Araştırma Kitabı
- Basım Tarihi: 2024
- Yayınevi: Yaz Yayınları
- Basıldığı Şehir: Afyonkarahisar
- Sayfa Sayıları: ss.60-85
- Editörler: Çetin Ekşioğlu Gözde Tahra, Editör
- Açık Arşiv Koleksiyonu: AVESİS Açık Erişim Koleksiyonu
- Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Urban and regional planning ensures the organized and systematic development of planned growth in sectoral, spatial, and socio-cultural dimensions. In Turkey, this is facilitated by Law No. 3194 on Zoning and the various types of planning defined in the law across different scales. Plans made from the country or regional scale down to the 1/1000 implementation scale, which has official enforcement power, may not always benefit the public, institutions, or legal entities. In cases where these plans violate other laws and regulations, infringe on the public interest, or are inconsistent with the planning processes and procedures, they can be legally reassessed. Administrative courts are responsible for evaluating legal processes in our country. During this process, the primary criteria evaluated include compliance with planning principles and rules, adherence to planning techniques and conditions, and alignment with the public interest. Different evaluations can be made depending on the status and nature of the case. Effectively concluding the case is important for improving and implementing plans and planning processes. The core structure of this study examines the planning of lawsuits in Turkey through the game theory model. In this process, parties expressing their claims or defenses are evaluated by experts and judges in terms of compliance with the aforementioned elements. The results of these evaluations have been assessed by structuring them using the game theory model. The case examined in the study focuses on the reassessment of the 1/5000 scale master development plan and the revision of the 1/1000 scale implementation development plan, as well as the questioning of new planning decisions that do not exist at higher scales. A significant emphasis of the study is on how outcomes are evaluated if the subject of the lawsuit is framed as a game. This approach to intervention in cities is essential in terms of fundamental rights and freedoms. Evaluating these processes through game theory also highlights the study's uniqueness.