Urbanization and the Use of Climate Knowledge in Erzurum, Turkey

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect

Procedia Engineering 169 ( 2016 ) 324 – 331

4th International Conference on Countermeasures to Urban Heat Island (UHI) 2016 Urbanization and the Use of Climate Knowledge in Erzurum, Turkey

Dogan Dursuna*, Merve Yavasa

aDepartment of City and Regional Planning, Ataturk University, Erzurum, 25240, Turkey

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to explore specific gaps between practices of urban planning and climate knowledge in Turkey. In this context, the city of Erzurum as one of the coldest climate cities in Turkey is used as paradigmatic case to show this gap. The paper starts with the overview of first urban development plans and continued with the analysis of a questionnaire survey of Erzurum local authorities. The findings showed that all related persons neglect climate knowledge in decision making and implementation process due to the market conditions, demands, local policies and technical problems.

© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 4th IC2UHI2016. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 4th IC2UHI2016

Keywords: Climate Knowledge; Urbanization; Local Authority; Planning; Erzurum

1. Introduction

Through the urbanization process, planned or unplanned developments are all affecting the urban climate. There is a difference between the temperatures of urban and rural areas. As it is stated by Oke [1] urbanization creates 12°C differences between urban and rural temperatures for night time. As it is explained in the literature as urban heat island effect, it becomes one of the important things determining livability of cities and affecting the quality of life. Urban design elements can be the reasons of both positive and negative climate related developments in urban areas such as urban heat island, air pollution, changing wind pattern, flood and surface temperature differences [2]. As the observation of these problems is increased through the last decade, it became an urgent need to change

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 442 231 1607; fax: +90 442 231 5881. E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-7058 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 4th IC2UHI2016 doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.10.040 Dogan Dursun and Merve Yavas / Procedia Engineering 169 ( 2016 ) 324 – 331 325 planning process in Turkey to include local climate conditions. It is clearly seen from Turkish example that total impact of the climatic data on the production of urban place is very low. Similarly, there is scarcely any interaction between climatology and planning in the case study area; Erzurum. In fact, climate consideration in planning has two thousand years of history starting from books of Roman architect and engineer Vitruvius [3]. As he discussed the form of buildings and layout of the settlements according to the climatic influences in those books, climate considerations for urban design have always been in the agenda of local building tradition. This has been changed in the period of industrialization. However, the importance of climate aspects in urban design has been understood again after 1970s’ energy crisis. All around the world, interaction between climatology and planning processes has been started to be emphasized from that time. Accordingly, especially in European countries, it is known that climatologists have been doing measurements from a very long time and they have been producing climate maps within comprehensive spatial context [3]. There are number of cases integrating climate knowledge to planning system in different parts of the world, but such kind of organizations and approaches cannot be observed in Turkey. Although there are many examples including climate consideration into the planning process in foreign countries, it is stated that the level of integration is not enough also for those countries [3, 4, 5]. In the light of above mentioned information, this study searches for an answer to the question of why climatic considerations are not integrated into the planning process in the case study area of Erzurum. It is determined as a case due to the dominant climate conditions (winter city) forming the daily life and defining the urban identity. In this context, some subtitles such as sufficiency and efficiency of climate data, problem areas, the uses and stages of them and aims of using climatology in planning process are defined. Besides, urban planners, climatologists and engineers were determined and used as target groups. Erzurum is a city situated 1757 meters’ altitude in eastern part of Turkey with its population of 780,000 in 2011 and the fourth largest city with its 25,066 km² area. It has a humid continental climate according to the Koppen Climate Classification [6]. It is a climatic region typified by large seasonal temperature differences with warm to hot summers and cold (sometimes severely cold) winters. While the sunny days are almost in low level, snowing is major. It is one of the coldest cities in Turkey with its very cold winter months with an average minimum during January of around -16°C. Under its climatic conditions, some negative effects are observed in Erzurum as the short daytime, air pollution, temperature differences, icy roads and pedestrian ways, and oblique angle of sunlight. They are generating deep impacts on the patterns of urban life [8]. These conditions restrict the activities of people in urban life by reducing the variation of outdoor activities. On the other hand, for some of people, winter conditions provide a beauty of nature and some recreational and sporting activities can be made under these conditions. The task of urban planners under these circumstances is to incorporate climate conditions into planning practices [9]. In this process, reducing inconvenience, protection from winter based stressors and utilization from the beneficial aspects should be the strategies necessitating highly creative approaches [8]. Achieving climate sensitive urban planning and design necessitates the understanding of climate conditions and the integration of them into the urban planning processes. This study aimed to answer important questions for the successful integration of climate knowledge in urban planning for the city of Erzurum by asking them to the planners, climatologists and mayors.

2. Methodology

The basic hypothesis of this study is that climate knowledge has no impacts on urban planning and decision processes in Erzurum, Turkey in spite of its dominant winter conditions. This hypothesis is based on the analysis of urbanization practices realized in the city [10, 11, 12]. In order to prove this hypothesis, the research is carried out in two stages. At the initial stage of the analyses, first urban plans and plan reports of the city were analyzed to evaluate the use of climate knowledge through planning process. According to the information obtained from plan documents, urbanization processes of that time were interpreted within the perspective of climate analysis and climate sensitive urban planning decisions. Secondly, semi structural interviews were made with the representatives of the four central municipalities and related two institutions in the city. Informants are selected from the persons representing the planning system and having experience of climate analysis and information. Then, interviews were defined and realized with the representatives of Erzurum Metropolitan Municipality, three central district municipalities and the regional directorate of state meteorology. Additionally, an interview was made with the 326 Dogan Dursun and Merve Yavas / Procedia Engineering 169 ( 2016 ) 324 – 331

coordinator of the plan in North East Anatolian Development Agency as the responsive authority of TRA1 (Nuts2) Level Regional Plan. In this analysis process, an investigation was made with the aim of answering four main questions that are: “do you know and accept the importance of the use of climate knowledge in urban planning processes?, what is the level and different uses of climate information in planning process?, and, how and when do you use climate knowledge in urban planning?”. The findings showed the missing links between climate knowledge and urban planning process in Erzurum case.

3. Results

3.1. Climate consideration and first development plans of Erzurum

This part of the paper examines the use of climate knowledge through the first planning experiences of case study area. It aims to analyze the accumulation of knowledge related to climate consideration through the spatial history. In order to have an overview of the planning processes of Erzurum four main references used; i.e. the conservation plan report of Erzurum Metropolitan Municipality [13], and studies of Hayati Doganay [14], Neslihan Demircan [15] and Merve Yavas [16]. According to those studies, urban development process of Erzurum began before 15th century in the rectangular area surrounded by Grand Mosque, Twin Minaret Madrasah, Yakutiye Madrasa and Ahmadiyya Madrasa. In the 17th century, the city has spread to a large extent to the northern direction. In the 18th century, settled places have reached to areas on east side, where the current Azizia and Mecidiye bastions located on the hillsides, and to Erzurum-Kars way on the south side. After 1830s, urban form has changed with the demolition of the city wall; that once fortified city started to extend beyond the wall. The ongoing process has witnessed the vanishing of the old settlement pattern. After the republican period, planned development and urbanization process has started in whole country. In order to realize these processes, foreign planners were invited to Turkey to plan some cities such as østanbul, Ankara, Trabzon and Erzurum. In 1939, the first plan of Erzurum was made by French Urban Planner J.H.Lambert. The plan had a target population of 100,000 people for 1965 and organized settlement areas in different zones according to the socio-economic characteristics. Also, the plan suggested five zones for the city as building complexes; family houses; worker and artisan neighborhood; new development districts; and mixed zones in which housing and trade units are located together. On the other hand, four category transportation systems were proposed in the plan. In the plan report, it was stated that 2.6 m2 green area and 6 m2 free spaces were designed for per inhabitant. Industrial area was suggested in the north-east part of the city according to the railway and transit motorway connection and prevalent wind direction. The spatial decisions of this first plan have been largely implemented [17]. The location of industrial area and the types of building complexes suggested in the plan were the main consistencies with the climate conditions. It was a good start for the planned development period of the city but in the following period consistencies of urbanization practices with climate were neglected. It is observed that the city has followed a concentric development form during and after its establishment process under the influence of topographical characteristics. However, this tendency of development has started to change regarding the urbanization growth towards the north, east and west directions after 1950s. The proposals and implementation of the ring road projects has also triggered this development. The city, which is located on the flat ground, has come closer to the topographic threshold on the outskirts of the Palandoken Mountain. In 1967, Zeki Yapar, who won the competition of Iller Bank about doing planning project, prepared different scaled plans [18]. All the planning efforts made after this date were based on the Zeki Yapar’s Environment Plan. This plan has proposed to change the compact form due to the limited development areas of the city and suggested satellite towns on the periphery. Population is predicted as 489,590 for 1985. Gezkoy and IlÕca where are the place 5 km and 12 km far away from the city were considered for the new settlements. These two suggestions have created development speculation and land jobbing, and caused illegal housing. Also, expected population increase was not realized and the number of population could only reach to 190,000 in 1980. Another important spatial decision was about the industrial area. Within the plan revision, 100 hectares organized industrial zone was placed near to Gezkoy. On the other hand, Yenisehir district was proposed as a development area for 20,000 people in the Land Dogan Dursun and Merve Yavas / Procedia Engineering 169 ( 2016 ) 324 – 331 327

Use Plan. However, after the declaration of plan decision, squatter houses have occupied the land. Additionally, evacuation and transformation of cemetery areas and military zones were suggested in the plan but not realized. The fail of those proposals left the plan deprived of its mainstays. And consequently, population density was increased so much that an inappropriate settlement pattern has emerged for the existing structure of surrounding areas. After these two plans of which the effects can easily be observed in today’s Erzurum, Master Plan Bureau headed by Alim Copuroglu prepared 1/25000 scale land use plan for whole Erzurum and its surrounding area in 1981. In order to create a place for urban development, areas designed for winter sports in the southern part of the city were transformed into an illegal housing prevention zone in the 1/5000 scale plan. With the approval of the plan, many building cooperatives wanted to start construction in that area. Another attempt to meet the requirements of new settlement areas was changing the land use decisions regarding the lands defined as industrial areas in the previous plan to housing areas. The other important change was experienced with the suggested development area near Gezkoy in Yapar’s plan. The place, which had rural characteristic and which was 5 km far away from the city, was transformed into a settled area with the pressure of land speculators. Fertile lands surrounding the Gez Village changed hands. Supporters of the land use change requested the establishment of an organized industrial site to that area in order to facilitate the realization of their construction demand. Building cooperatives also started to apply a pressure to local authorities about the change of plan by purchasing land in that area. With the help of power relations, some of the building societies got building permits and finished their constructions. In the light of these developments, Master Plan Bureau decided to use Gezköy (Gez village) as construction zone. Then, Master Plan Bureau defined Erzurum Macroform as one big centre and satellite towns connected to this centre by motor and railways. By doing 1/25000 Master Plan, the bureau enlarged the urban macroform to Dumlu at north-east and IlÕca at west side. This new macroform embraced nine different rural settlements. In order to balance the relationship between urban growth and environmental values, preservation areas were defined for the agricultural areas closer to urban land. All these development plans has lost their validities because of their estimation errors, deficiencies and implementation problems. In addition to those plans, revision land use plans were made by local authorities for 3000 hectare areas beyond IlÕca, Organized Industrial Site, Dadaskent, NewCity and Ataturk University. Zuhtu Can made those plans in 1989 [15, 19]. In the following period, so many problems have emerged in planning processes. The need for new plan was revealed within the framework of settlement and investment demand in the city. Planevi Company started to prepare land use plan in 2011 and finished it at the end of 2014. In the new land use plan scaled as 1/5000, the city of Erzurum was developed towards north, south and west sides. An industrial area has been suggested on the north-east region of the city near the ring road as the second organized industrial site. When the urbanization process of Erzurum is analysed through the plans and plan reports, it is seen that climate data is used only under the climate section in the form of giving temperature, humidity, wind, pressure, wind direction and precipitation values as statistical tables and graphs. It can also be observed that climatic information is not wholly reflected to plan and zoning decisions and stay at the level of analyses. All of the master plans have been evolved in accordance with different pressures and demands. It is understood that there is uncontrolled spontaneous development which submits to rent demand led by ad-hoc changes instead of a healthy planning approach in Erzurum. Climate conditions, which affect the identity of Erzurum city, are not considered within the planning processes. Interestingly, cold climate conditions, length of the heating degree days and housing typologies have not been also emphasized in any plans. The things considered in Lambert’s Plan as urban form, wind direction, housing typology and reasonable population projection are not taken into account in the other plans. Additionally, geographical disadvantages constituting inversion on the city have been neglected. Although it was aimed to provide a planned growth path for Erzurum, this could not be managed; which made Erzurum to have spontaneously developed city characteristics. This process may be neglected in the historical period but there is no such kind of organization in the new land use plan. In spite of all the discussion and precautions in the world about the climate change and global warming, winter conditions as the main characteristic of the city are not even reflected to the new plan and its spatial decisions. This may be the preview of future problems for the city and quality of life. 328 Dogan Dursun and Merve Yavas / Procedia Engineering 169 ( 2016 ) 324 – 331

3.2. The level of interaction among climate knowledge, urban planning practices and local government policies in Erzurum

In the second part of the analyses, interviews were made with the representatives of the urban planning departments of municipalities, official of regional directorate of meteorology and regional development agency. The main aim of the interviews is to see the level and use of climate knowledge in different stages of urban planning processes and to evaluate the awareness about the climatic information as well as the determination of the barriers for using climate information. In the first step, interview was made with the head of urban planning section in Erzurum Metropolitan Municipality. It is understood from the meeting that the planning knowledge given to the planners in the education process is not used in practice because of the power relations regarding urban land. Besides, climate knowledge is not used anywhere in the planning process of municipal work. Climatic data is obtained from meteorological station and integrated into the plan report due to the obligation in the technical specification of planning. However, the use of this information cannot be observed through the land use and zoning decisions and on overall development plans. Even so, climate conditions and wind direction were taken into consideration in some specific urban projects; such as the government’s projects carried on big urban areas. However, the use of climate information in those projects cannot be clearly stated and discussed due to the lack of written documents. One of the interesting things stated in the interview is that the metropolitan municipality is generally doing projects on existing settled areas and due to this reason they cannot do climate sensitive urban design and planning projects. Even if it is accepted as a valid reason for neglecting, it is known that there is also no climate sensitive planning decision in the new 1/5000 scale land use plan. When the questions were asked about the access to climate knowledge, quality and reliability of information, the responses showed that climate information can easily be obtained but their context and types are very limited. In the planning process, the use of climate information is very limited to the specification defined by Iller Banks’; the authority of plan making. About the reliability of information, it is stated that currency and authenticity of information is not known. About the use of climate knowledge in different fields, the interviewee stated that if they have climate maps for the city, they can easily give the priority to some places for urban transformation projects. She also complained about the weaknesses of suggested projects related to the solution of the air pollution problem of the city. As an opportunity for the cities’ future, 650hectare urban transformation areas were defined in the new plan but they are planning more intensive built environment having no places separated for green areas and community facilities. Climate knowledge is not used in any stage of planning processes. So, they have started to lose this opportunity for the city Erzurum. On the other hand, the ideas for the future were questioned and reply was about the establishment of the climatology unit in municipality and work with experts about climate. However, she also stated her drawbacks that this unit would create restrictions for the plans in the implementation process. In the second step, interview was made with the representatives of one of the central district municipalities; Yakutiye Municipality. In order to easily understand the first reaction of them about the climate sensitivity, the interview was designed as unstructured; such as a conversation. Head of the urban planning unit stated that the first thing in Erzurum is the loss of life because of the icicles dropping from the roofs and neglecting climate knowledge in urban planning projects. Need of climate knowledge for all stages of construction are emphasized in the meeting. Also it is underlined that even you have enough financial budgets, you could not make climate sensitive processing because of the inexistence of qualified persons. As a solution, it is represented that Erzurum Metropolitan Municipality should develop specific zoning regulations for the city and also give up the use of same building bylaws with other cities. Policies and power relations as the natural part of the municipal organization were stated as the reason of barriers of using climate knowledge in planning practices. Rent becomes the most important determinant of the cities’ urbanization process. The application of climate sensitive urban planning should only start after surpassing the negative effects of rent based power relations on urban land. In convenient with the existing situation, the specifications regarding urban transformation project do not refer to climate related issues. Although they are aware of the climate information and climatic studies in the world, they are still considering implementing this type of methodology through urban planning; i.e. referring Dogan Dursun and Merve Yavas / Procedia Engineering 169 ( 2016 ) 324 – 331 329 climate data throughout the whole process. They give the examples of maps and analyses showing the bird migration routes and state their willingness to use this kind of spatial representation. As a relevant department, they would like to use different kinds of information in planning process but they could not use them in practice due to the lack of qualified technical personnel, regulations and legislation, open minded administrator and qualified constructers. In the third step, vice president of the Palandoken Municipality gave us a speech about climate knowledge and urban planning politics of them. As the most important problem related to the climate issues, transportation system difficulties was stated and the main focus was on car parking areas. Because of the deficiencies in the legislation and regulation system, car parks for each house could not be considered and there is urgent need of public legislation to require a car park for each construction permit. On the other hand, it is stated as a problem that self-employed profession experts -such as planners and architects- are not preparing climate sensitive projects. They give importance to aesthetic issues, but neglect the climate conditions. As the local authority, they stated the need of climate sensitive solutions from building scale to urban scale. Similar to the other local government representatives, he emphasized the lack of qualified technical personnel in both private companies and local governments. It is suggested in the interview that responsibilities should be given to technical persons, whose numbers working in the local government should be increased. On the other hand, vice president stated the inefficiency of urban development law about climate sensitive planning and complained about the attitudes of the property owners and constructers in the new development areas. Their main concerns have always focused on conversion value of the place in accordance with the usage value and not related to climate and other environmental issues. It is clearly seen in Erzurum case that the processes are experienced in which individual benefit become more important than public interest. When the relationships between metropolitan and central district municipalities were questioned, changing characteristics were stated according to the mayor. Self-criticism is made about the permission of building constructions that is not given according to the supply and demand relation. He accepted that sometimes, permissions can even be given to the inappropriate building projects. In fact, the most important actors breaking the development laws are stated as the technical persons. Related to the future regulations and acts, some suggestions were made as the efficiency of development directorate; control; the need of change of the focus on demand and property owner side. In order to solve this kind of problems, increasing awareness is stated as a key strategy. In the fourth step, an interview wanted to be held with Aziziye Municipality as one of the three central district municipalities but they hesitated to make it, stating that there is no climate sensitive or climate related developments in that part of the city. This shows the inefficiency of technical persons and the low level of climatic information they have. After the representatives of municipalities, an interview was made with the head of regional directorate of meteorology as the authority of preparing institution of climate data. It is stated that the content of the climate data produced nowadays do not have the same qualifications with the ones produced in the near past. Bureaucratic processes concluding with the closing of some departments are demonstrated as the reason this change. For the preparation of ideal climatic information, the meteorological stations must work at least thirty years, but in Erzurum case, some stations were closed in the past 10 years. In the city centre, the station has been working for two years, which is not enough for the production of clear climatic data. As it is stated by the head of directorate, climate atlas and climatic maps were produced in developed countries with the help of stable measurement stations located in the city centres. The data obtained from one station is not enough for the creation of such kind of maps. So, more stations are needed to produce climatic map; which may direct urban planning processes. Bureaucratic problems between central and local authorities are preventing the establishment of new stations and complicating the processes. It can be concluded from the interviews that bureaucracy is slowing down and stopping the science. Additionally, it is complained that location selection of the meteorological station is made unprofessionally and so there is a need for the examination of results. Sometimes, professional assistance is needed according to the specifications of the station. In our country, some predictions can be made with the interpolation of the climatic data obtained from definite stations but the results are not reliable due to this method. Another problem area is defined as typing and transferring the climatic measurements as some of technicians do not know the meaning and use of this information. Also, values obtained from meteorology are generally the average values and they are mostly not enough to produce any specific plans and projects. Directorate of Meteorology is working with the demand and 330 Dogan Dursun and Merve Yavas / Procedia Engineering 169 ( 2016 ) 324 – 331

producing climatic information after it is demanded. Concerned with the urban heat island effect (UHI) which is very popular in the urban climate literature, there is no study made by meteorology in Turkey. It is out of the field of directorate and need a demand from municipalities or governorships to make measurements about this issue. In Erzurum, measurements for UHI effect have not been made until today but establishment of five different stations were proposed. However, they could not set them in the city due to the decisions of the central authority. The last interview was made with the leader of preparation team of regional plan in the North East Anatolia Development Agency. In the meeting, climate consideration in planning process is questioned. It is understood that regional plan only uses the climate data as a potential and concentrates on the economic side by directing the decisions about agriculture and tourism sectors. By looking at the temperature values, they are deciding growing crops in the region. However, it is seen that climate concept was not used in the context of plan. Only the existing situation is considered and no prediction for the future climate change is made. An emphasis for the city of Erzurum is concerned with the winter conditions and winter tourisms. When the existence of the climate based study is questioned for the development agency, it is seen that there is no direct climate sensitive strategy, but concerned with it, supports were given to carbon footprint and ecological corridor projects. It is also stated that development agencies have a role of increasing the awareness and providing the funds for projects about climate changes. As the reason of the lack of emphasis about climate related issues, it is specified that agencies are the responsible authorities of funding socio-economic development projects. The leader of the regional plan preparation team stated that there is no detailed climatic information for specific urban climate studies and creating such data is not in the scope of the studies of the directorate of meteorology. It is suggested that municipalities can set up a station and make a measurement related to the urban climate studies or Ministry of Environment and Urbanism can add sensors to their air pollution measurement stations. In that process, they will need the technical assistance of the directorate of meteorology. If such a process can be organized, climate maps can also be produced in our country. This is all related to the municipalities’ point of view about the environmental issues. On the other hand, it is remembered that standardization of the climate parameters and harmony of the measurement stations is very difficult for the city of Erzurum because of the altitude differences in urban area. Finally, the need for making climate projection and studies for climate change is emphasized. In the light of the above mentioned interviews, it can easily be said that there are many problems in Erzurum case listed with the titles as the level of climatic knowledge, technical inefficiencies, institutional problems, legislation and regulation restrictions, policy problems and negative effects of power relations.

4. Conclusion

The results of analysis and interviews confirm that the climatic data do not have effect on planning processes. Climatic data do not influence the planning decisions although they are referred within all analyses stages in planning process. The reasons are gathered together under the titles as technical issues, level of information, political factors, market conditions, and problems related to legislation and institutions. First of all, there are problems on the presentation of climatic data with the same quality continuously through history. On the other hand, there are deficiencies of knowledge regarding the production and editing of maps and atlases on which climate data are spatialized. The deficiencies of technical persons on the knowledge regarding the processes of both planning and preparation of climate data come to the fore as another reality. The municipalities, which are the institutions responsible from the planning and implementation processes, are the sources of political problems as they are also political organizations. Differences between priorities as well as the restrictiveness of climatic data and the high costs of policies lead municipalities to neglect climate politically. Besides, the development law and other development regulations together with laws and bylaws regarding the meteorological measurements may hinder the implementation and realization of what should be aimed by planning processes. The problematic relation between local and central governments regarding their authorities and responsibilities also inhibits the production of climatic data and the realization of an effective relation regarding planning processes. Moreover, the lack of climate policies hinders the municipalities to develop an approach which directs the planning process. Market conditions appear as the biggest obstacle as with all other examples of aimed true practices within planning processes in our country. Rent based approaches come forward as the most important issue repressing the relation between climatic data and Dogan Dursun and Merve Yavas / Procedia Engineering 169 ( 2016 ) 324 – 331 331 planning. In this process, the individuals, the representatives of construction sector and also the authorities of municipalities all become the actors who aim for the increase of the rent. The analyses show the multidimensional structure of the relation between climate and planning process. In addition to urban design, laws, regulations, institutional organizations and political dimensions of the process should be tackled together. The common problem of all is the weakness of the relation between the producers and users of the climate data as well as the lack of knowledge on how to use these data. In order to solve this problem, the urgent interventions should be made on the system of education for related disciplines as urban planning and meteorology engineering. While planners should learn how to use and interpret climate knowledge in urban planning process, meteorologists should produce climatic maps having spatial dimensions. They should understand the importance of the other discipline and try to integrate with studies made in another field. They should both have sensitivities for climate conditions and urbanization practices. Urban planning culture including climate knowledge can only be created within this sensitivity. This study indicates that climate conditions, especially the prevailing winter conditions, have not been involved within the planning processes of Erzurum as well as the production of local politics and strategies through discussing the reasons of this neglect. The development of additional tools and programmes to use climate data by urban planners, the growth of awareness on urban climate, the enhancement of communication and interaction between urban planners and climatologists, and the improvement of institutional capacities may help to solve the above mentioned problems in general context. It is seen that there are no interaction between climatologists, urban planners and local governments in Erzurum. Unless there would be developments regarding the improvement of these relations, the liveability of all of our cities would decrease under the increasing ecological risks. This study was made for Erzurum case due to its dominant climate conditions but the neglect of the climate knowledge in urban planning processes is the reality for all cities in Turkey. References [1] T.R. Oke, Canyon Geometry and the Nocturnal Urban Heat Island: Comparison Of Scale Model and Field Observations, Journal of Climatololgy 1, 1981, pp.237-254. [2] H. BalÕk, U.D.Yuksel, Planlama Sürecine øklim Verilerinin Entegrasyonu, Türk Bilimsel Derlemeler Dergisi, 7 (2), 2014, 1-6. [3] I. Eliasson, The Use of Climate Knowledge in Urban Planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 48, 2000, pp.31-44. [4] T.R. Oke, Towards a Prescription for the Greater Use of Climatic Principles in Settlement Planning. Energy and Buildings 7, 1984, pp.1-10. [5] N. Pressman, Sustainable Winter Cities: Future Directions for Planning, Policy and Design. Atmospheric Environment 30 (3), 1996, pp.521- 529. [6] M. Kottek, J. Grieser, C. Beck, B. Rudolf and F. Rubel, World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification, updated Meteorol. Z., 15, 2006, pp.259-263. [7] Governorship of Erzurum, Cografi YapÕ, www.erzurum.gov.tr, 2013. [8] N. Pressman, Shaping cities for winter: Climatic comfort and sustainable design, Prince George, B.C.: Winter Cities Association 2004. [9] S. Ebrahimabadi, C. Johansson, K.L. Nilsson, The challenges of incorporating climate considerations into urban planning of the subarctic regions, Paper I, Submitted for publication in European Planning Studies in May, 2012. [10]D. Dursun, M. Yavaú, Climate-Sensitive Urban Design in Cold Climate Zone: The City of Erzurum, Turkey, SPSD 2013 (The 2013 International Conference on Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development), Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, Aug 30 – Sept 01, 2013. [11]D. Dursun, M. Yavaú, Climatic Urban Design: Configuring Ventilation Channels in Urban Area, Erzurum, Turkey, Third International Conference on Countermeasures to Urban Heat Island, 13-15 October, Venice, Italy, 2014. [12]D. Dursun, M. Yavaú, Y. Okudan, KÕú Kenti Erzurum için Kentsel TasarÕm Rehberi-Urban Design Guideline for Winter City of Erzurum, International Winter Cities Symposium, Ataturk University, Faculty of Architecture and Design, 10-12 February, Erzurum, Turkey, 2016. [13]Erzurum Metropolitan Municipality, Koruma Amacli Imar Plani Arastima Raporu, Erzurum, 2012. [14]H. Doganay, Erzurum’un ùehirsel FonksiyonlarÕ ve BaúlÕca Planlama SorunlarÕ, Doçentlik tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1983. [15]N. Demircan, Mevcut ve Öneri Kentsel Dönüúüm Projelerinin Peyzaj MimarlÕ÷Õ AçÕsÕndan Incelenmesi, Erzurum Örne÷i, Doktora Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum, 2010. [16]M. Yavaú, Tarihi Çevrede Kentsel Kimlik ve Bir Uygulama AracÕ Olarak TasarÕm Rehberleri: Erzurum Kentsel Sit AlanÕ Örne÷i, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, MimarlÕk Fakültesi, 2012. [17]D. Dursun, S. YÕlmaz, H. YÕlmaz, M.A. Irmak, M. Demir, M. Yavaú, Hava Kirlili÷inde Ekolojik Koridor SenaryolarÕ: Erzurum Kenti, Atatürk Üniversitesi YayÕnÕ, Rana Medya, Erzurum, 2015. [18]øller BankasÕ, Zeki Yapar Erzurum PlanÕ Analitik Etüd Raporu, 1967. [19]E.E. ùiúman, I. KÕrzÕo÷lu, Erzurum Kent Merkezinde Yaya Bölgesi Olabilecek Kent Mekan Birimlerinin SaptanmasÕ ve Projelendirilmesi Üzerinde Bir AraútÕrma, Trakya Üniversitesi Bilimsel AraútÕrmalar Dergisi B Serisi, Fen Bilimleri, 3 (2), 2002, pp.127-139.