The negative effects of construction boom on urban planning and environment
The negative effects of construction boom on urban planning and environment in Turkey:Unraveling the role of the public sector
Osman Balaban *
United Nations University-Institute of Advanced Studies,6F International Organizations Center,Paci ?co-Yokohama,1-1-1Minato Mirai,Nishi-ku,Yokohama 220-8502,Japan
Keywords:
Construction boom Public sector Deregulation Urban planning
Environmental stress Sustainable construction
a b s t r a c t
Construction sector is usually accepted as the engine that triggers economic growth due to its strong backward and forward linkages with other sectors.On the other hand,it is also argued that increased construction activity could end up with negative economic,social and environmental impacts.The literature emphasizes the role of public sector,especially the national governments in minimizing the negative impacts of construction activity.The related arguments mostly postulate that public sector is well aware of the environmental challenges caused by construction activity and devoted to the under-standing of how to improve the sustainability performance of private developers.Yet the case of Turkey provides signi ?cant evidences to question these assumptions.In this respect,this paper elaborates on the negative impacts of increased construction activity in Turkey and argues the role of public sector in intensi ?cation of the negative environmental effects through deregulation on urban planning and housing production by public agencies.The ?ndings of the research highlight the importance of sustainable construction and verify the need for mainstreaming of sustainable construction into public policy-making at national and local levels,especially in developing countries,where most,if not all,of the future urban population growth will take place.
ó2011Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.
Introduction
Real estate investments and construction activity are of crucial important to the development of urban settings.First of all,urban built environment is produced through a range of construction activities.Second,real estate and construction sectors can have greater impacts on urban economies,either in positive or negative ways depending on how they are managed in particular contexts.The relationship between construction sector and economy is highly discussed and emphasized in the literature (e.g.Bon,1992;Dang &Low,2011;Lewis,2004;Su,Lin,&Wang,2003;Yorucu &Keles,2007).The construction sector is usually accepted as the engine that triggers economic growth due to its strong backward and forward linkages with other sectors (Dang &Low,2011;Lewis,2004;Su et al.,2003).
Nonetheless,the construction sector has also a dark side (Zainul Abidin,2010),as rapid expansion of construction activity can cause a variety of challenges in economic,spatial and environmental terms.Overexpansion of construction activity affects macroeco-nomic stability by generating in ?ationary pressures and wasting
resources (Dang &Low,2011:121).Furthermore,booming construction activity can have negative spatial and environmental impacts,like overproduction of urban built stock (Feagin,1987)and intensi ?cation of environmental deterioration through pollution,urban sprawl and destruction of vegetation (Yorucu &Keles,2007;Zainul Abidin,2010).
The recent literature (see Aveline &Li,2004;Dang &Low,2011;Wong,Thomas Ng,&Chan,2010;Zainul Abidin,2010)emphasizes the role of public sector,especially national governments in mini-mizing the negative impacts of construction activity through rele-vant policies.It is predominantly postulated that public sector is well aware of environmental challenges caused by construction activity and devoted to the understanding of how to improve sustainability performance of private developers.Yet the experi-ence in Turkey provides signi ?cant evidences to question this assumption.
Public sector enthusiastically contributed to the development of construction boom between 2002and 2007in Turkey.The government undertook signi ?cant steps to encourage public agencies and private developers to initiate large-scale urban (re)development projects.However,among these steps,deregulation on urban planning system and development controls is noteworthy.The intensive support by public sector has not just increased construction activity but led to negative environmental impacts
*Tel:t81452212349;fax:t81452212303.E-mail address:balaban@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e617823061.html,
.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Habitat International
jo urn al homepag e:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e617823061.html,/locate/h abitat
int
0197-3975/$e see front matter ó2011Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.05.003
Habitat International 36(2012)26e 35
including urban sprawl,green?eld development and environ-mental degradation.Based on the experience in Turkey,this paper highlights that construction activity has a dark side in terms of negative spatial and environmental impacts on urban areas,and argues that public sector can contribute signi?cantly to this dark side.The discussion on Turkish experience points out to impor-tance of sustainable construction practice and its mainstreaming into public policy-making to minimize negative effects of construction activity.Considering the?ndings of the research, policy implications are indicated for Turkey and other developing countries.
The next section sets the theoretical background for the discussion.Then comes the discussion on signi?cance and meth-odology of the research.This is followed by a presentation of the analysis of the experience in Turkey,starting with a brief elabora-tion on volume and dynamics of recent construction growth and then proceeding to negative impacts of increased construction activity on urban planning and environment.The analysis section is followed by a discussion on merits of sustainable construction for achieving a harmonious relationship among construction activity, urban development and environmental protection.In the conclu-sion,not only key messages of the paper but also several policy implications are provided.
The theoretical backdrop
The role of construction sector in economy is highly acknowl-edged in the literature(e.g.Bon,1992;Dang&Low,2011;Lewis, 2004;Su et al.,2003;Yorucu&Keles,2007).The construction sector is regarded as one of the leading sectors,which can stimulate economic growth due to its strong backward and forward linkages with other sectors(Dang&Low,2011;Lewis,2004;Su et al.,2003). Bon(1992:120)highlights that outputs of construction activity is the assembly of components and services supplied by various economic sectors,such as manufacturing and trade,transportation, service and?nance sectors.Given this interdependency,the construction sector is often regarded as the engine that triggers growth in other sectors and the economy.An example to such trigger effect is the case of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, where construction sector has contributed to growth of economy through growth in transportation,trade and commerce,and manufacturing sectors(Yorucu&Keles,2007).
In many countries,promoting growth in the construction sector is considered to be an appropriate policy option to stimu-late macroeconomic development(Dang&Low,2011;Su et al., 2003;Wong et al.,2010).Governments tend to use construction investments as an instrument to stabilize economy,and hence they give the sector a key role in developmental strategies(Dang &Low,2011).Taiwanese government,for instance,launched major construction projects to stimulate economic growth and enhance industrial production since global economic recession in the1970s(Su et al.,2003).In a similar manner,the government in Hong Kong has recently decided to promote10large-scale infra-structure projects to strengthen economy and consolidate Hong Kong’s position as a global city(Wong et al.,2010).Japanese government enacted a special law on urban regeneration and established an associated organization in early2000s,expecting that increased construction demand improves economic situation (Okabe,2005).
Nevertheless,the construction sector has also a dark side (Zainul Abidin,2010),as rapid expansion of construction activity can cause a variety of challenges.Some authors mention further economic problems that emerge after boom periods(Aveline& Li,2004;Dang&Low,2011).Overexpansion of construction activity is argued to affect macroeconomic stability by generating in?ationary pressures and wasting resources(Dang& Low,2011:121).Based on the experiences in major Asian countries,Aveline and Li(2004:302)mention that sudden increases in construction activity and property prices are fol-lowed by increases in in?ation and property rents,reduction in capital availability for future investments and decrease in housing affordability.
On the other hand,some other authors argue the adverse spatial and environmental impacts of booming construction activity in cities(Aveline&Li,2004;Feagin,1987;Yorucu&Keles,2007; Zainul Abidin,2010).For instance,booming of?ce construction in Houston(US)in the1980s caused glut of low-quality of?ce build-ings and high vacancy rates(Feagin,1987).Likewise,release of public lands and deregulation of?oor-area-ratio regulations in central Tokyo(Japan)in late1980s resulted in an oversupply of new of?ce blocks and condominiums,regardless of real demand (Aveline&Li,2004).Recently the emphasis regarding negative impacts of construction activity has shifted onto environmental stress and sustainability issues.The rapid construction activity in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is known to have accelerated the rate of environmental deterioration through pollution,damage given to natural and historical sites,and urban sprawl(Yorucu& Keles,2007).Negative environmental impacts like destruction of vegetation,dust pollution and use of building materials harmful to human health have resulted in environmental dissatisfaction with construction projects in Malaysia and led the government to warn developers not to sacri?ce environment in favor of economy(Zainul Abidin,2010).
The adverse effects of overexpansion of construction activity have increased the recognition of critical role to be played by public sector to reduce these https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e617823061.html,ernments are urged to adopt policy options,such as institutional arrangements,land-supply measures and land-use regulations that help to reduce negative effects of construction activity(see Aveline&Li,2004; Dang&Low,2011;Wong et al.,2010;Zainul Abidin,2010).A common recommendation is to establish an agency,which deals with problems in construction sector and problems caused by construction sector through strategic planning at macro-level (Dang&Low,2011;Wong et al.,2010).In particular,in major Asian countries‘anti-speculation packages’were introduced in the 1990s to address negative effects of construction booms(Aveline& Li,2004).
The arguments that stress the role of public sector are based on assumptions that primary responsibility for negative effects of construction activity belongs to private developers,and public sector can lead them to take appropriate actions to minimize negative economic and environmental impacts of their activities. In this respect,governmental bodies are recommended to(1)help private developers to realize the merits of improving their activ-ities in sustainable manners,(2)increase environmental aware-ness of private developers,and(3)improve developers’understanding on how to be responsive to the need for better economic and environmental performance(Tan,Shen,&Yao, 2011;Zainul Abidin,2010).Such recommendations take it for granted that governmental bodies,public of?cials and politicians are well aware of environmental challenges caused by over-expansion of construction activity and devoted to the under-standing of how to improve sustainability performance of private developers.
However recent experience in Turkey provides signi?cant evidences to question the trust in public sector to manage construction activity in more sustainable and environmentally-friendly manner.Public agencies and local governments joined to the‘entrepreneurial fervor’in construction sector during the recent boom between2002and2007.For instance,Housing Development
O.Balaban/Habitat International36(2012)26e3527
Administration of Turkey 1(hereafter TOKI)has turned into one of the biggest property developer in the country during the boom.The active participation of public agencies did not bring better envi-ronmental performance.Conversely,national and local govern-ments are observed to be primarily responsible from negative spatial and environmental effects of increased construction activity.These effects are elaborated in sixth section,where Turkish expe-rience is analyzed.
Signi ?cance of the research
Turkey is still a rapidly urbanizing country,where cities are growing in size and in population.The share of population living in cities has increased from 24.8%in 1950to 69.6%in 2010,and is estimated to reach 84%in 2050(World Urbanization Prospects,2008).Currently,there are 12cities in Turkey with a population of more than 500,000inhabitants,including 5cities over 1million and a city over 10million inhabitants (Istanbul).In the next 15years,it is estimated that number of cities over 500,000inhabitants will reach 17with a subset of 8cities over 1million (World Urbanization Prospects,2008).Therefore a major challenge facing cities in Turkey is to accommodate the additional population with suf ?cient homes,jobs,infrastructure and services.
The very rapid pace of urbanization in Turkey between 1950and 1985,during when population in cities were more than doubled,have resulted in a dual spatial structure,leading to coexistence of formal and informal settlements side by side.It is commonly accepted that almost half of the built stock in major Turkish cities have been built illegally and informally.According to 2000Building Census (Turkstat,2001),40%of existing buildings in 2000were found to have neither construction nor occupation https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e617823061.html,rmal settlements in cities are,in large part,vulnerable to natural and climate-related events like earthquakes and ?oods,and located in environmentally critical areas.For instance,in Beykoz in Istanbul,unplanned urban development reduced forest and agri-cultural land from 76%to 60%and from 15%to 10%respectively between 1984and 2001(Musaoglu,Tanik,&Kocabas,2005).The second major challenge regarding urban development in Turkey is thus that informal and most vulnerable parts of cities need to be transformed into safe and livable urban environments.
At the same time,Turkey is a disaster-prone country that suffers from natural events especially earthquakes and from climate-related impacts like ?oods,water shortage,heat stress,etc.Turkey is located in Mediterranean region that is under severe risk of water shortage due to future rainfall scenarios (Wilby,2007).As one of the world ’s 20largest economies,Turkey is expected to contribute signi ?cantly to global efforts to address environmental problems,reduce global warming and tackle climate change.Hence,third major challenge facing cities in Turkey is to manage urban development and urban growth in a way not to enhance the country ’s contribution to global environmental problems.
The three major challenges mentioned above are interrelated and efforts to address them have to be undertaken in a coordinated manner.In the case that one or two of these challenges are addressed at the expense of other(s),opportunities may be lost and limited resources may be wasted.Efforts that address these chal-lenges in a coordinated way can help achieving sustainability and cost-effective solutions that also bring multiple bene ?ts simulta-neously.Fig.1illustrates major urban development challenges in Turkey and possible outcomes of addressing different combinations of these challenges.
The construction sector can play a key role to address the three major challenges that Turkish cities face.Construction activity is an instrument to address these challenges,in the sense that construction is necessary to meet the demand for new buildings to accommodate additional population and also to renew old and low-quality building stock.However,the construction sector in Turkey is highly dependent on the state,particularly ?nancial support provided by the state (Batmaz,Emiroglu,&Unsal,2006).There is strong correlation between construction sector ’s productivity and amount of public investments,indicating that public investments are determinative on growth or decline in construction activity in
Turkey (Ercan and Saat?io g
lu,2004).Therefore,public sector has to provide necessary conditions including ?nance,infrastructure investments and guidance,to stimulate construction activity to address the major challenges.
There have been several efforts by the government in Turkey to address the ?rst two challenges in collaboration with the construction sector since 2000.The national government has been working to increase housing production and to transform informal settlements by means of empowering TOKI and encouraging construction activity.However there are serious concerns that these efforts are not suf ?ciently consistent and compatible with each other,and that the ?rst two challenges are being addressed at the expanse of the third challenge.This research aims to shed light on these concerns by discussing the impacts of efforts that stimu-late construction activity,and by revealing the extent of these impacts.In order to achieve these goals,(1)an elaboration has been made on legislative changes that deregulated urban planning framework and development controls during boom period mainly to encourage the boom,(2)a categorization of deregulation attempts and measures has been made to provide a succinct understanding of deregulation,and (3)likely environmental foot-prints of deregulation have been discussed and highlighted.Lessons learned from Turkish experience are expected to be useful to formulate policy implications for Turkey and other rapidly urbanizing countries,where cities face similar challenges.Besides,these lessons can also help improving the understanding of addressing major urban development challenges simultaneously and in coordinated
manners.
Fig. 1.Major urban development challenges and likely outcomes of alternative solutions.
1
The administration is known as TOKI,which is the abbreviation for its name in Turkish.
O.Balaban /Habitat International 36(2012)26e 35
28
Research methodology
This research is based on content analysis of various docu-ments.Content analysis is a useful approach to the examination of documents developed over time in order to uncover the under-lying themes,messages and intentions in these documents (Bryman,2001).Besides,content analysis is?exible to be applied to a wide variety of documents(Bryman,2001).The documents that were analyzed in this research include of?cial documents from the state(statistics,of?cial reports,acts of the parliament, etc.),of?cial documents from private sources and NGOs(expert reports,annual reports,statistical data),media outputs like newspapers,virtual outputs like internet sources.All the docu-ments analyzed are publicly available,authentic and comprehensible.
The research has been carried out in several steps by employing the data gathered from different sources.First of all,a literature review was conducted to obtain the information needed to set the conceptual basis of the discussion.At this step,necessary infor-mation was obtained from academic journals and books.The second part of literature review provided information on recent growth in construction activity in Turkey and also on impacts of this growth in spatial and environmental terms.At the second step, sources of reference include not only academic journals and books but also institutional and government reports,conference proceedings,websites and newsletters.
Secondly,secondary data on the construction sector,which was used to discuss the volume and dynamics of recent boom, was largely compiled from national database provided by Turkish Statistical Institute.Besides,data and information provided by other public and private sources were also used to this aim.
Thirdly,data that was used to elaborate on deregulation on urban planning framework and development controls has been collected by the author through content analysis of legislative changes that have taken place from January2002to October2007. The documents analyzed were gathered from archives of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey(hereafter TBMM)that is the unicameral Turkish legislature.In the?rst step of the analysis,it was found out that973laws have been approved by TBMM between2002and late2007.This total number excludes draft laws, which were not discussed in a parliamentary session.All of these laws were read through to identify the ones that are totally or partially related to built environment,urban planning and devel-opment controls.78laws and10by-laws related to these laws were identi?ed in this regard.
In the second step of the analysis,a detailed and a careful examination of related laws and by-laws(88in total)was made to identify legal arrangements that were made,one way or another,to encourage construction activity and facilitate various kinds of large-scale urban projects.The careful readings of laws and by-laws have ended up with a list of198legal arrangements of this kind.It is not much to say that most of these legal arrangements can be considered as a form of deregulation on legal and institutional framework on urban planning,urban development,and environ-mental conservation.
Categorization of these legal arrangements has constituted the third step of the analysis of legislative changes that happened during the construction boom.The categories have been deter-mined based on the goals and objectives of legal arrangements. We grouped legal arrangements according to their ultimate objectives,and then de?ned the general categories and sub-categories considering these groupings.The four major cate-gories under which legal arrangements have fallen are:(1)land policy,(2)built environment production,(3)development amnesties,and(4)legal and institutional framework on urban planning.Table2presents the summary of?ndings of this anal-ysis.Categorization of legal arrangements can help understanding the domains of deregulation as well as goals,forms and objectives of deregulation attempts,especially the ones on legal and insti-tutional framework on urban planning and development.The frequencies on each kind of legal arrangements indicate the intensi?cation of deregulation attempts across domains and goals.
The analysis of the Turkish experience
The recent construction boom in Turkey:2002e2007
Volume of construction activity has increased substantially after 2002in Turkey.The growth has continued until the start of global ?nancial crisis in2008.Table1presents signi?cant indicators revealing the change in volume of construction between2000and 2009.The share of construction sector in GDP has increased steadily after2001and reached a peak of6.5%in2007.Average annual growth rate of GDP share of construction was11.6%for the period of2001e2007,which was almost twice of that of total GDP (6%,Table1).This can be regarded as indication of the positive correlation between construction sector and economic growth in Turkey.
Annual number of construction permits issued by municipalities is the major indicator for new construction in Turkey.Figures pre-sented in Table1indicate a rapid increase in new construction starts after2002,rising from43,430units in2002to114,204units in2006and106,659units in2007.Likewise,total?oor area of new buildings increased from36million m2in2002to123million m2in 2006and125million m2in2007.Average annual growth rate of new construction was22%for the period of2002e2007based on number of permits,and30%based on total?oor area of permitted buildings.
It is plausible to expect observing an increase in employment in construction sector during a boom period,as the sector is labor-intensive(Dang&Low,2011:122).Number of employees in the Turkish construction sector increased from958,000in2002to 1,241,000in2008,and the share of construction sector in total employment increased from4.5%to5.9%during the boom.Like-wise annual number of new company formations in construction sector has more than doubled between2003and2007after rising from3222to8124.The share of construction companies in total company formations increased from10%in2003to14.7%in2007 (Table1).
All the indicators show substantial growth in construction after 2002,which has reached the peak in2007.Since then growth seems to have ended,considering that share of construction sector in GDP has decreased by8.2%in2008and16.1%in2009(Table1).In view of the underlying factors,the recent construction boom could be distinguished from the boom of the1980s.Unlike the previous boom,which had been caused by domestic forces(Turel,1989), foreign demand and capital in?ows2played a key role in the recent boom.A substantial amount of foreign capital?owed into Turkey after2002.The value of foreign direct investment in?ows(here-after FDIs)increased from US$1.08billion in2002to US$10billion in2005and to US$22billion in2007(Utt,2010).Turkey’s annual share in the world’s total FDIs increased from0.3%in2003to1.54% in2006(Utt,2008).
2As this paper doesn’t set out to elaborate on dynamics behind the boom,only foreign capital in?ows and demand are mentioned here,considering they are the most signi?cant determinants.
O.Balaban/Habitat International36(2012)26e3529
A signi ?cant part of capital in ?ows was in form of direct real estate purchase and construction investments.During the 5years following 2003,FDIs in form of real estate purchase increased from US$998million to US$2.94billion in 2008(Utt,2010).Likewise,foreign direct investments in construction and real estate sectors increased from US$6million in 2004to US$987million in 2008and share of foreign direct investments in both sectors increased from 0.5%to 6.7%during the same period 3.The increased in ?ow of foreign capital has led to abundance of ?nancial capital in economy.The abundance of hot money stimulated domestic supply and demand in construction sector through recovery of ?nancial markets.For instance,total amount of mortgages supplied by banks increased from TL97.8million in 2001to TL15.6billion in 2006,and share of mortgages in total consumer credits increased from 4.2%to 37.5%during the same period 4.
Both national and local governments have played an active role in stimulation of growth in construction activity after 2002,and their involvement has contributed to negative impacts caused by increased construction.In what follows,negative impacts of increased construction activity are elaborated with a particular focus on the role of public sector.Negative impacts of the construction boom
Deregulation on urban planning frameworks and development controls
The construction boom of the 2000s took place largely in an unplanned manner.Little attention has been paid by national and local governments to manage the boom in more sustainable and planned ways.In many cities,pro ?t-oriented and speculative
attempts of developers were regarded as signs of ‘good business climate ’and welcomed by public bodies without questioning their potential impacts.In this sense,public sector has supported recent construction boom by adopting various legal arrangements and amendments particularly on urban planning framework (see Table 2).Most of these arrangements and amendments were in form of deregulation in order to facilitate real estate and construction investments.The results of thorough review of archives of TBMM indicated that 78laws and 10by-laws,totally or partially concerning the production of built environment were enacted from 2002to late 2007.198legal arrangements,majority of which can be considered as attempts and measures for deregula-tion,have been identi ?ed in these laws and by-laws (Table 2).A major form of deregulation is the ease of urban planning framework and development controls through a couple of new legal and institutional arrangements.The main purpose of this form of deregulation has been to give more autonomy to developers,both in private and public sectors (like TOKI as a public provider),in selecting the location and de ?ning the volume of their property investments.We identi ?ed 76legal arrangements (out of total 198arrangements)adopted to bring this form of deregulation.The ?rst group of these arrangements (26out of 76)reallocated the authority to prepare land-use and urban development plans among governmental institutions.Certain institutions were delegated the authority to prepare land-use plans for speci ?c sites or sectoral locations .For instance,Law No.5398(enacted in 2005)gives Presidency of Privatization Administration the authority to prepare land-use plans on properties that belong to the state ’s enterprises listed in privatization program.In a similar manner,Law No.4957(enacted in 2003)transferred the authority to prepare urban development plans for tourism zones from local governments to Ministry of Culture and Tourism.With Law No.5162(enacted in 2004)TOKI was delegated the authority to prepare all kinds of plans on lands,where ownership has been transferred to TOKI.These legal arrangements were intended to guarantee a fast-track planning process for sectoral investments like housing and tourism investments by transferring the authority concerning
Table 1
Selected indicators for construction activity in Turkey,2000e 2009.Years
Value of total GDP (1998prices,thousand TL)Value of GDP in
construction (1998prices,thousand TL)Share of
construction in total GDP Growth rate of total GDP Growth rate of GDP in construction Number of all new buildings
(construction permits)Floor area of all new buildings
(construction permits)200072,436,3994,150,231 5.7% 6.8% 4.9%79,14061,694,941200168,309,3523,426,908 5.0%à5.7%à17.4%77,43057,449,494200272,519,8313,903,516 5.4% 6.2%13.9%43,43036,187,021200376,338,1934,207,040 5.5% 5.3%7.8%50,14045,516,030200483,485,5914,801,693 5.8%9.4%14.1%75,49569,719,611200590,499,7315,250,284 5.8%8.4%9.3%114,254106,424,587200696,738,3206,220,955 6.4% 6.9%18.5%114,204122,909,8862007101,254,6256,573,647 6.5% 4.7% 5.7%106,659125,067,023*******,163,9746,032,078 5.9%0.9%à8.2%95,193103,846,233200997,087,661
5,058,491
5.2%
à5.0%à16.1%90,719
98,919,202
Years
Total employment (no.of employees,thousands)Employment in construction (no.of employees,thousands)Share of
employment in construction No.of new companies in total No.of new companies in
construction sector Share of construction companies in total new companies 200021,5801364 6.3%33,161491314.8%200121,5241100 5.1%29,665359212.1%200221,354958 4.5%30,842348711.3%200321,147965 4.6%32,259322210.0%200419,632966 4.9%40,919493812.1%200520,0671107 5.5%47,401657613.9%200620,4231196 5.9%52,699799915.2%200720,7381231 5.9%55,350812414.7%200821,1941241 5.9%49,003
7035
14.4%
2009
21,277
1249
5.9%
Sources:Turkstat (2009:165,399e 400,453,725e 726)&Turkstat (2010:176,179,247,357).
3
Figures are compiled from website of Undersecretariat of Treasury of Turkey (UTT),available from:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e617823061.html,.tr/irj/portal/anonymous (last access 16.12.2010).4
Figures are compiled from website of The Banks Association of Turkey,available from:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e617823061.html,.tr/tr/(last access 16.12.2010).
O.Balaban /Habitat International 36(2012)26e 35
30
urban planning from local governments to sectoral ministries or administrations at the national level.The second group of legal arrangements(17out of76)that resulted in the ease of urban planning framework gave certain public institutions the unre-stricted authority to prepare land-use plans.What is meant by unrestricted authority is that certain institutions like Ministry of Public Works and Settlement(MPWS)were given the authority to prepare land-use plans without being amenable and restricted to the rules and conditions of existing urban development legislation. The purpose of such arrangements is to bypass current planning regulations and development controls for certain projects and investments.
The second form of deregulation is embedded within legal arrangements regarding public lands and properties(58out of the total198arrangements).A signi?cant part of these arrangements (27out of58)aimed to facilitate sale of public lands and properties for(re)development projects or private investments,such as tourism investments(Table2).The most popular kind of proper-ties that was subjected for sale were designated public properties5. Law No.4916(enacted in2003)gave Minister of Finance the authority to terminate the designation status of any public prop-erty at any time and subject them for sale.More speci?cally,Laws No.5005(enacted in2003)and Law No.5220(enacted in2004) enabled Minister of Finance to terminate the designation status of schools and hospitals,most likely the ones in favorable locations in cities,and subject their lands for sale.The reason for the
Table2
Summary of the legislative changes to support construction activity,2002e2008.
Domains of legal arrangements Major goals of legal
arrangements
Objectives of legal arrangements(predominantly
the forms of deregulation)
Frequency of
arrangement
Selected legislation for reference
Land Policy Land allocation Allocation of public lands and properties to promote private
investments in particular sectors 6Laws No.:4833,4848,4957,5398,
By-law:30.03.2004e25418
Allocation of public lands to TOKI for mass housing
production
4Laws No.:4833,4966,5273,5609
Allocation of public lands in SCZs to promote private investments in particular sectors 9Laws No.:4957,5335,5398,5178,
By-law:30.03.2004e25418
Land sale Sale of public lands6Laws No.:4916,5003,5018,5335 Sale of designated public properties14Laws No.:4833,4969,4916,4967,
5005,5003,5018,5027,5319,5335,
5220,5234
Relaxing of legal regulations to accelerate the process of land sales and allocation 7Laws No.:4916,4957,4833,5335,
5220,5234
Change in land category Changing the category of lands and properties in SCZs4Laws No.:4965,4999,By-law:
25.03.2005e25766
Relaxing of legal regulations or restrictions on SCZs to
promote private investments in particular sectors
8Laws No.:4957,5398,5177,5366,5192,
By-laws:30.03.2004e25418and
25.03.2005e25766
Built Environment Production Mass housing
production
Promotion of mass housing production7Laws No:4964,4966,5162,5273,5609
Empowerment of TOKI5Laws No.:4767,4864,4966,5162,5237,
5273,5609,5366
Provision of?nancial support to increase owner-occupation1Law No.5582
Promotion of housing production in certain disaster-prone
settlements
5Laws No.:4767,4864,4966,5234,5237 Urban regeneration Promotion of pro?t-oriented regeneration projects on
designated public properties
7Law No.:5003,5335,5234,5126,
5393,5366
Promotion of pro?t-oriented regeneration projects in SCZs4Law No.:5335,5234,5366
Promotion of pro?t-oriented regeneration projects in
particular locations
5Laws No.:5104,5366,5126,5393
Mega-projects Promotion of particular pro?t-oriented mega-projects10Law No.:5335,5234,4957,5398,
By-laws:03.11.2003-25278and
30.03.2004e25418
Development Amnesties Legalization of
illegally-built
developments
Sale of illegally-occupied public lands to occupiers8Laws No.:4916,5104,5366,5334
Status legalization of illegally-built developments
and investments
10Laws No.:4916,5027,5178,5403,
5491,5578
Reduction in scope of?nes imposed on illegally-built
developments and investments
2Law No.:5027,5178,5334,5377
Legal and Institutional Framework on
Urban Planning Ease of urban
planning framework
and development
controls
Unrestricted authority to prepare land-use plans17Laws No.:4833,4969,5003,5335,
5234,5398,5366
Sector-based reallocation of authority to prepare
land-use plans
11Laws No.:5162,4848,4957,4856,
5494,5491,By-law:03.11.2003e25278 Area-based reallocation of authority to prepare
land-use plans
15Laws No.:5104,5398,5366,5524,
By-law:03.11.2003-25278
Fast-track planning by suspending or relaxing certain
rules and principles of urban development legislation
10Laws No.:5003,5335,4916,5234,
5162,4957,4971,5398,5104,5366,
By-law:03.11.2003-25278
Delegation of authority(power)to prepare land use-plans
for privatized(sold)public properties
10Laws No.:4833,4969,5003,5335,
5234,5398
Relaxing of land selection process for built investments6Law No.:5335,4848,4957,5398,5366,
By-law:30.03.2004-25418
Empowerment of greater municipalities against
district municipalities
5Laws No.:5104,5126,5272,5393,
5481,5524
Relaxing of legal regulations&restrictions in legislation
on conservation of cultural heritage and natural environment
2Laws No.:5366,5192,By-law:
23.12.2003-25318and25.03.2005-25766
5These are the properties that are designated to certain public services and uses
or public institutions.
O.Balaban/Habitat International36(2012)26e3531
interest in sale of designated public properties is that these properties predominantly exist in attractive central locations within cities,and therefore their lands can be used for develop-ment of pro?t-oriented urban projects.In line with this interest, designated public properties were equipped with privileged development rights prior to sales that facilitate the development of pro?t-oriented real estate investments on these properties. Land sales were not limited to designated public properties but also included publicly owned lands within environmentally critical sites like forests and coasts.The second group of legal arrange-ments concerning public lands and properties(19out of58)were made to facilitate the allocation of public properties for private investments,such as tourism and real estate investments(Table2). The main focus of these arrangements was on public lands and properties located in special conservation zones6(SCZs).In addi-tion,it is also found out that12legal arrangements were enacted to ease or remove the restrictions for development on special conservation zones.The main motive behind this kind of arrangements was to encourage and facilitate tourism investments along coastal zones.
There are several examples of sale of public lands in order to encourage market-driven redevelopment projects.A good example is sale of the land of Grand National Assembly Dwellings7(TBMM Dwellings)in Ankara.The government enacted a couple of laws (see Laws No.4833and4969)to execute the sale of this property and facilitate redevelopment of the land of these dwellings.The related laws gave MPWS the authority to prepare land-use plans and urban design projects on that property without being restricted to the rules of existing urban development legislation.Following the completion of the legal basis,land of former TBMM Dwellings was redeveloped as a high-density and a mixed-use area with17 high-rise residential blocks and a large shopping mall.The area is now occupied by upper-income groups,as primary purpose of public e private partnership that organized redevelopment process was to make maximum pro?ts.
The legal arrangements on“urban regeneration”constituted a distinct form of deregulation on urban planning during the construction boom.A number of legal arrangements were intro-duced to enable local governments and TOKI to develop urban regeneration projects in cities.However concept and process of ‘urban regeneration’in these arrangements is formulated quite different than its western counterparts.Urban regeneration is de?ned as a comprehensive process that deals with problems of urban decline in certain areas by considering social,cultural, economic and physical improvement of those areas(Roberts, 2000).However,in recent legislation in Turkey urban regenera-tion refers to market-driven and pro?t-oriented built investments and physical renewal activities within attractive and pro?table parts of cities.The main merit of recent legislation on urban regeneration(see Table2)is that it bypasses legislations on urban planning and heritage conservation within‘regeneration project sites’.Based on recent legislation on urban regeneration many local governments initiated regeneration projects on green?elds on outskirts of cities.
Deregulation of urban planning has resulted in adverse envi-ronmental impacts,such as urban sprawl,urban development on green?elds and encroachment of natural environments.The next section discusses these impacts based on some speci?c cases and examples.Environmental footprints of increased construction activity The public sector has contributed directly to construction activity after2002through housing projects and real estate investments made by TOKI.The national government has made essential changes in housing policy by enacting various laws and by-laws from2003to2006.Most of these legal instruments aimed to empower TOKI by providing the administration with new responsibilities and resources,and also enabled it to become a direct provider in the property market(Turk&Altes,2010:187). For instance,all the assets and duties of former Land Of?ce were transferred to TOKI(see Law No.5273),and this provided TOKI with 64.5million m2of public lands that could be used to develop housing projects.Considerable numbers of mass housing projects were initiated in almost every city by TOKI following the legal and institutional changes.From2003to2010,TOKI built445,000 housing units,half of which targeted middle and high income groups8.The recent attempt by TOKI to contribute to housing production has had serious consequences.Along with their contribution to construction boom,may be the most important consequences of TOKI-led projects are contribution to urban sprawl and urban development on green?elds.These consequences are mainly due to site selection process of housing projects.
Instead of considering local circumstances and spatial growth trends,TOKI has adhered to the approach of developing housing projects on public lands included in its portfolio or on lands that could be transferred to TOKI freely(Balaban,2009;Ozdemir,2010). In most cases,this approach has ended up with housing projects at the outskirts of cities,and even in areas with no access to public transportation.One of the prominent examples of such projects is the“Turquoise Valley”project in Ankara,which was built on land transferred to TOKI from the General Directorate of Highways.The project site is28km away from city center in Ankara and still not very well connected to public transportation system in the city. Ozdemir(2010)maps the distribution of housing projects initiated by TOKI in Istanbul and thus clearly demonstrates that major housing projects of TOKI and signi?cant part of its housing production in Istanbul are located on the outskirts of the city. Several NGOs reacted to the housing projects of TOKI in city of Bursa claiming that projects have contributed to unplanned expansion of city toward peripheries and created several discon-nected neighborhoods9.Needless to say,all these projects contributed to unplanned and sprawling expansion of cities in Turkey and increased commuting distances in major Turkish cities, which are known to be automobile-reliant.
The entrepreneurial fervor of TOKI also resulted in development of housing projects on green?elds,environmentally-critical sites and designated public properties.For instance,two of the housing projects of TOKI in Bursa were developed on valuable agricultural lands on peripheries(Balaban,2009).Ozdemir(2010)mentions the case of Ayvalik,where TOKI’s attempt to build housing project on a forested hill was prevented by the municipality by converting the hill into a recreational area.Avrupa Houses Project in Istanbul was built on a site,which was designated as‘hospital area’in the land-use plan that was in effect prior to the project(Turk&Altes,2010: 188).TOKI has changed land-use category of the site from‘hospital area’to‘residential area’in2004by preparing a partial plan,as the administration was given the authority to prepare all kinds of plans
6‘Special conservation zones’(SCZs)refer to areas that are designated to be protected due to their unique features,such as forests,meadows,coasts,etc.
7These dwellings were publicly owned houses in Ankara allocated to members of parliament-in-of?ce,most of which are based in other cities in Turkey.
8For detailed information,please visit TOKI’s website,and for?gures mentioned here,please refer to:(lasthttps://www.wendangku.net/doc/e617823061.html,.tr/TR/Genel/BelgeGoster.aspx? F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6AA849816B2EFDF36587C4B003136(last access at17.12. 2010).
9For details,please see:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e617823061.html,.tr/Default.aspx?_RID?270&_ LNG?Tr(last access at17.12.2010).
O.Balaban/Habitat International36(2012)26e35 32
on its own lands in2004(Turk&Altes,2010).Such projects owe their presence to deregulation on urban planning and lawful exemptions given to TOKI by national government.
TOKI has inspired local governments and private developers to open peripheral lands to urban development.In the same way as TOKI,many local governments in partnership with private devel-opers launched urban regeneration projects and real estate investments on green?elds.However these projects and invest-ments were barely developed and managed as part of a broader urban planning perspective.Conversely,most of them emerged as ad-hoc and speculative attempts mostly located on outskirts of cities,where it is relatively cheap to acquire land.Such attempts also resulted in signi?cant contribution to urban sprawl and loss of green?elds.For instance in Ankara,city government declared more than30locations as‘urban regeneration project sites’right after adoption of legal arrangements on urban regeneration,and most of these regeneration sites were on outskirts of the city far beyond current built-up area(Sahin,2006).
Encroachment of natural environments,particularly coastal zones and forests is another signi?cant impact of overexpansion of real estate investments and construction activity.This impact was mainly due to legal arrangements and amendments regarding public lands within special conservation zones.As argued earlier, several legal arrangements and amendments were made after2002 in order to facilitate allocation of public lands within special conservation zones for private real estate and tourism investments, and they also aimed to remove or ease the restrictions for devel-opment in these zones.The attempts to facilitate and encourage new real estate and tourism investments on favorable and environmentally-critical sites have accelerated the loss of natural vegetation within these zones.Environmental dissatisfaction with tourism investments especially in coastal zones has frequently appeared in media after2003.A well-known example is the case of Belek,which is a coastal resort in city of Antalya in Mediterranean Turkey.The allocation of public lands in forests for construction of golf resorts have led to rapid and massive loss of coastal forests. According to the information provided by a local NGO,named ‘Antalya Branch of Association for Protection of Turkey’s Nature’, 500,000trees were cut down in coastal Belek to open up land for tourism investments between2005and200710.Such tourism investments owe their presence to deregulation on urban planning and environmental protection,and tolerance of related public bodies.
All in all,the construction boom of the2000s occurred in tandem with deregulation on urban planning framework and development controls.Increased construction activity supported by deregulation has resulted in adverse environmental impacts in and around cities.The most common impacts are urban sprawl, urban development on green?elds and encroachment of natural environments.Public sector has signi?cantly contributed to over-expansion of construction activity and to negative environmental impacts caused by increased construction.
The negative environmental impacts of built investments during boom period evoked reactions among civil society groups and activists.NGOs and professional chambers undertook actions to urge public authorities,particularly TOKI to consider the problems associated with housing investments and large-scale urban projects of TOKI and its counterparts in public and private sectors. Along with awareness-raising campaigns,expert-opinion panels and technical surveys on certain projects,NGOs and professional chambers have also appealed to courts,claiming that some investments and projects were in contradiction with the Consti-tution,related legislation and technical principles.A major example is‘Galataport Project’that intended to build a cruise port together with mall,hotel,of?ce and residential blocks over Salipazari port in historical Istanbul.The project has been terminated by the court on application of Chamber of City Planners(SPO,2006).President of TOKI has recently admitted the shortcomings of TOKI projects,and promised improvements11.However there is no obvious progress in this respect so far.Sustainable construction can be an appropriate strategy for public sector in Turkey and particularly for TOKI to make certain improvements.
The discussion
Environmental challenges are pressing both at global and local levels.Prompt actions are required to deal with these challenges. Sustainable development and climate change mitigation and adaptation are the two major conceptual frameworks that help governments,private sector and civil society to undertake necessary actions for better environmental performance.Since construction activity can have great impacts on environment,the emphasis placed on construction sector within these frameworks is growing. For instance,a signi?cant part of carbon emissions is from buildings especially in cities of high income nations.In view of high emissions from buildings,construction methods and building designs are suggested to be changed in a way to bring energy-ef?ciency in buildings(Roberts,2008).Likewise,special emphasis is recom-mended to be placed on attempts for reducing construction waste, using recycled construction materials,and employing techniques that help minimizing the harmful effects of construction activity on environment(Tan et al.,2011;Wong et al.,2010).Such concerns have led to the concept of sustainable construction,which is a comprehensive strategy that contributes to efforts towards sustainable development by applying principles of sustainable development to entire cycle of construction activity(Tan et al.,2011; Zainul Abidin,2010).
In developed countries like U.S.,Australia and Japan guidelines for sustainable construction have been developed since2000.The guidelines are coupled with certi?cation systems that register and certify best practices of green buildings.U.S.Green Building Council, which launched the LEED guidelines in2000,is said to be a pioneer in this respect,considering more than12,659projects in the U.S. have already been certi?ed(Korkmaz,Erten,Syal,&Potbhare, 2009).Likewise in Japan,establishment of Japan GreenBuild Council(JaGBC)and Japan Sustainable Building Consortium(JSBC) in2001led to the CASBEE System12,which is an assessment tool for rating the environmental performance of buildings.The progress in Turkey regarding sustainable construction practice is very limited, and no such guidelines and certi?cation system exist.A major recent development is the establishment of Turkish Green Building Association(CEDBIK)in2007,an NGO lobbying on green buildings and working to force public authorities to introduce a certi?cation system for green buildings.Apart from very few exceptions,neither public nor private sector in Turkey follows sustainable construction principles in their built investments.
Despite the above-mentioned efforts in some developed countries,wider implementation of sustainable construction that facilitates a radical shift from conventional way of
10For more information and aerial photos showing the change of land cover in coastal forest in Belek,please see:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e617823061.html,/2007/turkiye/10/30/ agac.katliami.tescillendi/401367.0/index.html(last access at27.12.2010).
11See;https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e617823061.html,/h46269-toki-baskani-400-bin-konuta-ulastik-ama-mimari-yanlisliklarimiz-da-oldu.html(last access at17.03.2011).
12For more information,please see:http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/index. htm(last access11.03.2011).
O.Balaban/Habitat International36(2012)26e3533
construction to sustainable ways has yet to occur(Zainul Abidin, 2010).Perhaps the most critical reason for slow implementation of the strategy is lack of awareness among key actors within public sector.As demonstrated in the Turkish experience,public sector can have primary responsibility for leading to unplanned and overexpansion of construction activity and to its environ-mental footprints.Therefore,concept of sustainable construction has?rst to be mainstreamed into public policy-making at national and local levels.Public of?cials and policy-makers need to be made well aware of dark side of construction sector and informed about how sustainable construction can help to provide better environmental performance.Public sector that lacks the necessary understanding,awareness and consideration on sustainable construction cannot lead and encourage private developers to improve their activities in more sustainable manners.Green building councils,guidelines and certi?cation systems can be considered as policy options by which certain improvements can be made.
Conclusion
There has been signi?cant growth in construction activity between2002and2007in Turkey.Along with other factors,foreign capital in?ows and foreign demand have stimulated the boom in construction.Nevertheless,growth in construction resulted in several challenges concerning urban planning system and envi-ronmental protection.‘Good business climate’in construction and real estate sectors ended up with intense demand by private developers and public agencies for loose planning regulations and development controls.The national government has responded positively to these demands by enacting various legal arrange-ments and amendments bringing different forms of deregulation on urban planning and development controls.Furthermore,some of these arrangements empowered and encouraged certain public agencies and local governments to become direct providers of housing and real estate investments.The`entrepreneurial fervor’in construction sector has led to intensi?cation of environmental stress in and around big cities and coastal towns in Turkey.Public sector appears to have primary responsibility for overexpansion of construction activity and intensi?cation of negative environmental effects through deregulation of legislation and direct provision of built investments.
Considering the?ndings of the research following are identi?ed as lessons learned and policy implications for Turkey to minimize the dark side of construction activity.These lessons also apply to many other developing countries.
C Developing and rapidly urbanizing countries like Turkey
have to overcome several urban development challenges with their limited resources.In order to avoid investments to become lost opportunities(like most of the TOKI investments in Turkey)governments should undertake efforts that address all major urban development chal-lenges simultaneously.
C Construction activity,into which sustainable development
principles are integrated,is critical and useful to address urban development challenges in Turkey.
C Housing policy needs to be revised in a way to include prin-
ciples of sustainable construction and to minimize environ-mental footprints of housing construction in Turkey.
C Awareness of sustainable construction among general public,
policy-makers and public of?cials has to be raised.
C Sustainable construction has to be mainstreamed into public
policy-making in Turkey and it has to be ensured that public
sector would follow the principles of sustainable construction in its actions.
C Guidelines on green buildings,certi?cation systems and
incentive mechanisms can be an opportunity for Turkey to promote sustainable construction practices and encourage private developers to construct green buildings.However in order to take the lead,public sector agencies need to comply with guidelines and certi?cation systems for most of their built investments.
Acknowledgements
This paper is partially based on the author’s PhD thesis. Professor H.?a g atay Keskinok,who supervised the PhD research,is gratefully acknowledged.The author,who is currently a full-time researcher at the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies(UNU-IAS),is grateful to UNU-IAS for supporting his post-doctoral studies through the UNU-IAS Fellowship Programme.The author is also grateful to Dr.Jose A.Puppim de Oliveira for his helpful comments on the earlier version of this https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e617823061.html,st but not least,the author wishes to thank the editor and three anonymous referees for their constructive comments.
References
Aveline,N.,&Li,L.H.(2004).Reconsidering land policies in Asia.In N.Aveline,& L.H.Li(Eds.),Property markets and land policies in northeast Asia,the case of?ve cities:Tokyo,Seoul,Shanghai,Taipei and Hong Kong(pp.298e314).Hong Kong: Maison Franco-Japonaise&Centre of Real Estate and Urban Economics HKU. Balaban,O.(2009).Planlama ve mimarl?k ekseninde TOKI uygulamalar?.[Assessment of TOKI projects considering urban planning and architectural principles].In TMMOB Kentles?me ve Yerel Y?netimler Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitab?(pp.93e115) [Proceedings of the symposium on urbanization and local governments].
Ankara:TMMOB Yay?nlar?.
Batmaz, E.S.,Emiroglu,K.,&Unsal,S.(2006)._Ins?aat??lar?n Tarihi.[History of contractors].Ankara:Türkiye Müteahhitler Birli g i.
Bryman,A.(2001).Social research methods.New York:Oxford University Press. Bon,R.(1992).The future of international construction:secular patterns of growth and decline.Habitat International,16,119e128.
Dang,T.H.G.,&Low,S.P.(2011).Role of construction in economic development: review of key concepts in the past40years.Habitat International,35,118e125. Ercan,H.&Saat?io g lu,S.(2004)._I?ve d?s?pazarlarda Türk ins?aat sekt?rü:büyüme ve istihdam dinamikleri[Turkish construction industry in domestic and inter-national markets:dynamics of growth and employment].In_Iktisadi Sekt?rlerde Gelis?me Stratejileri Tebli g Metinleri-II,2004Türkiye_Iktisat Kongresi [Proceedings of the Turkey Economy Congress2004:development strategies in economic sectors],Volume5,Ankara,235e256.
Feagin,J.R.(1987).The secondary circuit of capital:of?ce construction in Houston, Texas.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,11,172e192. Korkmaz,S.,Erten,D.,Syal,M.&Potbhare,V.(2009).A review of green building movement timelines in developed and developing countries to build an inter-national adoption framework,in Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Construction in the21st Century:Collaboration and Integration in Engi-neering,Management and Technology,May20e22,2009,Istanbul,Turkey, 1749e57.
Lewis,T.M.(2004).The construction industry in the economy of Trinidad and Tobago.Construction Management and Economics,22,541e549.
Musaoglu,N.,Tanik,A.,&Kocabas,V.(2005).Identi?cation of land cover changes through image processing and associated impacts on water reservoir condi-tions.Environmental Management,35,220e230.
Okabe,A.(2005).Towards the spatial sustainability of city-regions:a comparative study of Tokyo and Ranstad.In M.Jenks,&N.Dempsey(Eds.),Future forms and design for sustainable cities(pp.55e72).Great Britain:Elsevier.
Ozdemir,D.(2010).The role of the public sector in the provision of housing supply in Turkey,1950e2009.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00974.x.
Roberts,P.(2000).The evolution,de?nition and purpose of urban regeneration.In P.Roberts,&H.Sykes(Eds.),Urban regeneration:A handbook(pp.9e36).Lon-don:Sage.
Roberts,S.(2008).Effects of climate change on the built environment.Energy Policy, 36,4552e4557.
Su,C.K.,Lin,C.Y.,&Wang,M.T.(2003).Taiwanese construction sector in a growing ‘maturity’economy,1964e1999.Construction Management and Economics,21, 719e728.
Sahin,S.Z.(2006).Kentsel d?nüs?ümün kentsel planlamadan ba g?ms?zlas?t?r?lmas?/ ayr?lmas?sürecinde Ankara.[Ankara in the process of separating urban regeneration from urban planning].Planlama,(2006/2),111e120.
O.Balaban/Habitat International36(2012)26e35 34
SPO.(2006).Sehir plancilari odasi.[Chamber of city planners].Ankara:Haber Bulteni [The Newsletter].No.168.
Tan,Y.,Shen,L.,&Yao,H.(2011).Sustainable construction practice and contractors’competitiveness:a preliminary study.Habitat International,35, 225e230.
Turel, A.(1989).1980Sonras?nda konutüretiminde gelis?meler.[The develop-ments in housing production after1980].ODTU Mimarl?k Fakultesi Dergisi,9, 137e154.
Turk,S.S.,&Altes,W.K.K.(2010).Institutional capacities in the land development for housing on green?eld sites in Istanbul.Habitat International,34,183e195. Turkstat.(2001).Building census-2000.Publication No.2471.Ankara:Turkish Statistical Institute.
Turkstat.(2009).Statistical indicators,1923-2008.Publication No:3361.Ankara: Turkish Statistical Institute.
Turkstat.(2010).Turkey’s statistical yearbook2009.Publication No:3436.Ankara: Turkish Statistical Institute.Utt.(2008).Foreign direct investments in Turkey,2007.Ankara:Undersecretariat of Treasury of Turkey(UTT)General Directorate of Foreign Investment.
Utt.(2010).Foreign direct investments in Turkey,2009.Ankara:Undersecretariat of Treasury of Turkey(UTT)General Directorate of Foreign Investment.
Wilby,R.L.(2007).A review of climate change impacts on the built environment.
Built Environment,33,31e45.
Wong,J.M.W.,Thomas Ng,S.,&Chan,A.P.C.(2010).Strategic planning for the sustainable development of the construction industry in Hong Kong.Habitat International,34,256e263.
World Urbanization Prospects.(2008).The2007Revision population database.
Available from https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e617823061.html,/unup/Accessed(05.03.11).
Yorucu,V.,&Keles,R.(2007).The construction boom and environmental protection in Northern Cyprus as a consequence of Annan plan.Construction Management and Economics,25,77e86.
Zainul Abidin,N.(2010).Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable construction concept by Malaysian developers.Habitat International,34,421e426.
O.Balaban/Habitat International36(2012)26e3535