Urban Resilience through Agroecological Urbanism: Transition Pathways across Societal, Ecological, and Institutional Dimensions in Beykoz, Istanbul

ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCES AND SUSTAINABLE APPROACHES: URBAN RESILIENCE Editors Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ October 15, 2025 Copyright © 2025 by İKSAD publishing house All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. Institution of Economic Development and Social Researches (The Licence Number of Publicator: 2014/31220) TÜRKİYE TR: +90 342 606 06 75 USA: +1 631 685 0 853 E mail: [email protected] www.iksadyayinevi.com It is responsibility of the author to abide by the publishing ethics rules. Iksad Publications – 2025© Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience ISBN: 978-625-378-337-2 Cover Design: Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ October 15, 2025 Ankara / Türkiye Size = 16x24 cm PREFACE Dear Professors and Colleagues, We are pleased bring to life that Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience, which was published as an e-book by IKSAD Publishing House with the editors Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU and Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ. This book project, entitled “Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience,” aims to address sustainability-oriented approaches to urban resilience from theoretical, methodological, and practical perspectives. The volume seeks to establish a multi-layered platform of discussion, ranging from the scale of individual buildings to the entirety of the urban fabric. Within this framework, it welcomes contributions from scholars and researchers working in architecture, urban design, landscape architecture, urban and regional planning, environmental engineering, and related disciplines. With the valuable contributions of our chapter authors working in the professional disciplines of landscape architecture, architecture, city and regional planning, urban design and sustainability, we have completed Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience book study has been completed with 24 book chapters. We would like to thank you, our esteemed authors, for their contributions to the preparation of the book. We would also like to thank the editorial board and IKSAD Publishing House. We wish to continue this process we have started in the coming years. In addition, we would like to express our sincere appreciation to Prof. Dr. Atila GÜL, the book coordinator of IKSAD Publishing House, for his guidance and support throughout the publication process. We hope that our book ‘Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience’ will be helpful to the readers. Best regards. 15.10.2025 EDITORS Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ EDITORS Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ AUTHORS The authors were listed in alphabetical order Alper ÇABUK Ayça GÜLTEN Ayşe ÖZYETGİN ALTUN Ayşe Özge ŞİMŞEK SOYSAL Ayşegül TANRIVERDİ KAYA Demet EROL Deniz DEMİRARSLAN Ebru Vesile ÖCALIR Eda ŞENTÜRK Elif Kübra ÖZTÜRK Emine BAYDAN Esra KESKİN Feran AŞUR Feyza Sena ŞENOCAK Filiz KARAKUŞ Furkan AKDEMİR Gencay ÇUBUK Gülşah BİLGE ÖZTÜRK Halil DUYMUŞ Hamza ALTAŞ Hande AKARCA İnci OLGUN Kemal Mert ÇUBUKÇU Kumru ÇILGIN Mehmet Akif IRMAK Mehmet Emin DAŞ Mehtap ÖZENEN KAVLAK Merve ALICI AKA Mesut GÜZEL Muhammed Akif AÇIKGÖZ Muhammed Emir GÖRAL Murat YEŞİL Olcay Türkan YURDUGÜZEL Özge DÜZGÜN EREKİNCİ Pervin YEŞİL Rabia Nurefsan ACIKGOZ Sedef ŞENDOĞDU Seher Simay KUŞOĞLU Serim DİNÇ Sevilay YILDIZ Sinem SEYHAN Şevval ERGİNDOĞAN Şuheda ALTUNOK Temuçin Göktürk SEYHAN Tuba Nur OLĞUN Tuna BATUHAN Ufuk Teoman AKSOY Yusuf Eminoğlu REVIEWER LIST The authors were listed in alphabetical order Aslıhan TIRNAKÇI Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Atila GÜL Süleyman Demirel University Ayşe Kalaycı ÖNAÇ İzmir Katip Çelebi University Bige ŞİMŞEK İLHAN İstanbul Medipol University Burcu YILMAZEL Eskişehir Technical University Eda KOÇAK Siirt University Ekrem BAHADIR Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University Elif KUTAY KARAÇOR İstanbul Technical University Hakan ARSLAN Ondokuz Mayıs University Hilal TURGUT Karadeniz Technical University Meliha AKLIBAŞINDA Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Murat AKTEN Süleyman Demirel University Nihan Sümeyye GÜNDOĞDU Atlas University Okan Murat DEDE Amasya University Ömer Lütfü ÇORBACI Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Selcen Nur Erikci Çelik Beykoz University Sibel AKTEN Isparta Unıversıty Of Applıed Scıences Sinem ÖZDEDE Pamukkale University Şeyma ŞENGÜR Ordu University Turgut KALAY Kütahya Dumlupınar University Tendü Hilal GÖKTUĞ Aydın Adnan Menderes University 254 1. Introduction In recent years, the accelerating climate crisis, food insecurity, biodiversity loss and growing societal vulnerabilities have made it necessary to fundamentally rethink cities—both in their physical structure and governance systems. In this context, urban resilience offers a critical conceptual foundation, particularly from a planning perspective. However, it is often reduced to ensuring the continuity of technical infrastructure systems or is viewed too narrowly in terms of disaster management approaches (Meerow et al., 2016). Nevertheless, urban resilience should not solely be understood as the capacity to respond to crises, but equally as the ability to transform the structural inequalities that produce those crises in the first place (Vale, 2014; Ziervogel et al., 2017). At this point, agroecological urbanism is a holistic approach that broadens the scope of debates on urban resilience by offering a transformative conceptual framework centred on the principles of social justice, ecosystem restoration and food sovereignty. Agroecology is a mode of production grounded in local knowledge systems and signifies the reconstruction of a nature-aligned, solidarity-based, and participatory way of life at the urban scale (Anderson et al., 2021; Tornaghi & Dehaene, 2019). This approach reinterprets resilience as not solely a ‘response capacity,’ but as an opportunity for transformation. This reorients urban planning towards greater justice, inclusivity, and sustainability (Ernstson et al., 2010; Colding & Barthel, 2013). Integrating agroecological urbanism and urban resilience is particularly significant for reorganising urban food systems, promoting nature-based solutions and including vulnerable communities in decision-making 255 processes. This approach provides a framework that prioritises technical, cultural, and political resilience in the face of crises (Fraser & Stringer, 2009; Colding & Barthel, 2013). As such, planning becomes a tool not exclusively for repairing existing systems, but more importantly for enabling alternative ways of living. Building on this perspective, the present study draws on the scientific research project titled “A New Generation Sustainability Strategy in Spatial Planning: Agroecological Urbanism,” which was conducted at Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University in cooperation with the Municipality of Beykoz. As part of this collaboration, a participatory workshop was held in October 2024 which provided the main empirical basis for the research. Guided by a qualitative design, thematic analysis was employed to analyse the workshop discussions. The resulting insights were categorised into three dimensions—societal, ecological, and institutional—forming a framework to explore the dynamics of the agroecological transition within a multi-dimensional and intersectional context. The research is structured around the following key questions: • How does agroecological urbanism offer a transformative framework for building urban resilience? • How do vulnerabilities emerging across societal, ecological, and institutional dimensions shape or constrain resilience strategies? • In what ways can the experience of Beykoz serve as a model for developing strategies for agroecological urbanism at the metropolitan scale? In response to these questions, the study puts forward a hybrid conceptual approach that combines agroecological urbanism and urban resilience, 256 aiming to contribute to the development of more just, resilient, and sustainable urban policies at both local and metropolitan levels. 2. A Holistic Perspective on Urban Resilience: Agroecological Urbanism Agroecological urbanism is a multi-layered approach to urban planning that has emerged in response to escalating ecological crises, increasing food insecurity, urban poverty, and exclusionary practices. It seeks to reimagine urban life as one that is aligned with nature, just and resilient, by integrating the environmental and societal principles of agroecology with critical urban theory in a holistic manner. As a relatively new conceptual foundation within urban planning, it challenges conventional paradigms by promoting principles of spatial justice, participatory governance, and ecosystem-based planning. Agroecological approaches offer a structural framework for resilience, aiming to enhance cities’ capacity to withstand multiple shocks caused by the climate crisis, entrenched urban inequality and ecosystem degradation. In this respect, they align with the concept of urban resilience at thematic, operational, and practical levels. Through the localisation of food systems, restoring ecosystem services, and expanding community-based practices, agroecological urbanism can develop transformative, rather than reactive, resilience strategies. By doing so, it offers an urban vision that addresses not solely the crises themselves, but equally the structural inequalities that cause them. 257 2.1. The Societal Ground of Agroecological Urbanism: Food Sovereignty and Social Justice The literature on agroecological urbanism considers the spatial and institutional reorganisation of food systems to be an effective means of addressing urban inequalities and fostering societal resilience. Food sovereignty, in this context, is understood not simply through production processes, but more importantly through principles of public participation and democratic access (Patil et al., 2018; Resler & Hagolani-Albov, 2020; Simón-Rojo, 2021). From this perspective, food systems are more than physical sites of production; they are arenas of societal struggle where spatial injustices can be confronted and transformed (Tornaghi, 2017). Agroecological spaces are understood as sites of food production and as platforms for cultivating community solidarity and enabling selforganisation. As a result, these spaces can become localised centres of selfsufficiency. Simón-Rojo’s (2021) study of low-income neighbourhoods in Madrid shows that agroecological production areas encourage societal empowerment, and Resler and Hagolani-Albov (2020) demonstrate that such spaces promote food democracy. These social justice–oriented perspectives are closely linked to the social and societal dimensions of urban resilience. During times of extraordinary disruption, such as food crises, natural disasters or pandemics, the collapse of centralised food systems makes the resilience of local and community-based systems more vital (Altieri et al., 2015). From a rights-based planning perspective, agroecological spaces can be considered sites of ‘societal resilience.’ Such practices introduce a new dimension to debates on urban resilience by proposing models that move beyond centralised, homogeneous 258 solutions. Instead, they respond to diverse local needs and empower vulnerable groups. Agroecological systems based on food sovereignty are particularly important for supporting these groups, given that food insecurity disproportionately affects women, migrants, and those on low incomes. Drawing on the notion of ‘urban vulnerability’ emphasised by Xiu et al. (2011), recognising that analysing and assessing vulnerability provides a new basis for urban planning, particularly in large cities, highlights the need to prioritise vulnerable groups in planning processes. At this critical juncture, agroecological approaches offer urban resilience models that address multiple forms of vulnerability while integrating them with the pursuit of social justice. Nevertheless, as food sovereignty encompasses more than just production, the spatial configuration of food systems and their integration into the wider urban landscape are equally important. Research focusing on integrating food systems into urban planning shows that agroecological planning can be applied not solely in rural areas, but equally at metropolitan scales. Marull et al. (2023) emphasise the importance of ecosystem services and rural–urban solidarity in peri-urban agricultural land planning, while Zhang et al. (2013) and Zaki et al. (2023) highlight the usefulness of GIS-based multi-criteria decision-making tools in assessing the spatial suitability of urban agricultural zones. These tools are particularly effective in ensuring the equitable and strategic spatial positioning of urban agricultural areas. Together, these studies reveal the vital role that scientifically sound spatial analysis can play in resilient urban planning. 259 However, local food production alone is insufficient for achieving food sovereignty; the distribution, accessibility and public integration of that production are equally important. To this end, the relationship between food production and ecosystem services must be made more visible (Sirowy & Ruggeri, 2024). Indicators such as carbon balance, oxygen generation and soil quality can inform data-driven assessments of the location of food production areas, facilitating the development of environments that promote health and productivity (Derkzen et al., 2017). In this regard, urban gardens have been shown to serve as sites of food production and contribute to stormwater management, soil permeability, and the mitigation of urban heat island effects (Corrêa et al., 2022). This approach highlights the importance of addressing agroecological systems holistically to rebuild resilient cities at ecological and public health levels. It is therefore essential to recognise agroecological spaces as foundational infrastructures for environmental health, psychological well-being, and even post-disaster recovery, in addition to sources of nourishment. 2.2. The Ecological Ground of Agroecological Urbanism: NatureBased Resilience and Ecosystem Restoration Nature-based solutions are strategies that enhance cities’ resilience by responding to and anticipating crises, in addition to adapting structurally to cumulative environmental pressures. Agroecological urbanism is a powerful tool in this regard as it improves ecosystem services and redefines the relationship between local communities and the natural environment. In this context, ecosystem restoration is merely the first step; the ultimate goal is to re-establish a way of living that integrates nature within urban settings. By linking ecosystem restoration to social inclusion, 260 knowledge production and local practices, agroecological urbanism provides a practical and non-normative foundation for nature-based resilience. For example, Sylvester et al. (2020) demonstrate in their study of the ecological prioritisation of degraded agricultural land in Colombia how ecosystem restoration can be incorporated into planning processes. This involves more than just physical repair; it also provides a spatial framework that enables public participation. Similarly, Zhou et al. (2011) emphasise that green space planning should consider not solely visual green elements, but equally ecological carrying capacity and environmental thresholds. Their work demonstrates how computational ecological suitability models can facilitate the scientific integration of nature-based solutions into spatial planning. For this reason, agroecological urbanism does not solely seek to achieve nature-based resilience through the expansion of green spaces. Rather, it considers this objective alongside the reconstruction of cultural ties and the promotion of local production models. Tornaghi and Dehaene (2019) argue that such transitions constitute ‘prefigurative urban practices’ involving environmental interventions that shape new urban imaginaries. The case study of Bengaluru, examined by Patil et al. (2018), shows that agroecological practices deliver environmental benefits and reinforce local knowledge systems, socio-cultural memory and networks of solidarity. Green infrastructure plays a highly strategic role within urban systems, generating biophysical benefits alongside economic, social, and psychological gains. These multi-functional landscapes enhance access to nature, thereby contributing to the realisation of the right to the city for vulnerable groups (Morris et al., 2022). Metropolitan-scale landscape 261 planning models, for instance, highlight the contribution of agriculture to urban sustainability and the socio-ecological functions of large-scale green infrastructure (Marull et al., 2023). Technical models that demonstrate the measurability and integrability of such benefits into planning processes allow nature-based resilience to be strategically incorporated into urban systems (Zhang et al., 2017; Luan et al., 2021). At the same time, these models position urban ecological infrastructures as functional tools, encompassing aesthetic and visual green elements, climate resilience, and socio-economic stability. Indicators such as carbon sequestration, oxygen generation, soil moisture regulation, and microclimate control provide scientific insights into how urban landscapes can be reimagined. Integrating these indicators with agroecological approaches makes naturebased resilience measurable, actionable, and co-developable in collaboration with local communities. In this context, nature-based resilience constitutes an approach that transforms the epistemology of planning itself, rather than being a singular strategy. Agroecological urbanism unites the spatial, administrative and cultural infrastructures of this transformation, enabling cities to evolve into multi-functional, multi-scalar, and multi-actor systems that can withstand uncertainty. 2.3. The Institutional Ground of Agroecological Urbanism: Planning Tools and Governance Models Agroecological urbanism is a multi-level approach that addresses not solely the physical environment and production systems, but equally how these systems are planned and governed, guided by a holistic perspective. The planning tools and governance models employed within this 262 framework are critical in understanding how urban resilience can be built and institutionalised at the local level. In turn, the institutionalisation of urban resilience depends less on technical instruments than on governance mechanisms that are participatory, transparent and based on local knowledge. The effective use of planning tools depends largely on the quality of decision-making structures, or the forms of governance. Rather than relying on conventional top-down, hierarchical governance models, agroecological urbanism employs multi-scalar and multi-actor approaches to governance. Studies have shown that the success of agroecological initiatives is closely tied to collaborative efforts between municipalities, cooperatives, civil society organisations and neighbourhood-based groups (Resler & Hagolani-Albov, 2020; Simón-Rojo, 2021). This highlights the fact that institutional resilience advances through pluralistic and inclusive governance. Weidner et al. (2019) emphasise the importance of integrating knowledge sharing related to food systems, participatory decision-making processes and equitable governance structures throughout the planning process in agroecological urbanism. In this regard, they argue that governance mechanisms play a transformative role in shaping the relationship between urban agriculture and urban justice. The authors also highlight the importance of what they refer to as reflexive governance for the successful implementation of agroecological transitions at an urban level. In acknowledging the need to consider both vulnerable groups and spatial vulnerabilities in the planning process (Cutter et al., 2003; Xiu et al., 2011), the agroecological urbanism approach provides a more democratic, 263 preventive and equitable planning framework. Rather than addressing these vulnerabilities through social assistance programmes, it uses participatory planning tools. At the same time, it plays a strategic role in building comprehensive resilience against multiple shocks, ranging from disaster risks to the climate crisis. Studies have shown that urban agroecological practices contribute to gains in biodiversity and the development of biocultural resilience (Vidal Merino et al., 2021; Villavicencio-Valdez et al., 2023). In this context, it is emphasised that planning and governance processes must engage with both formal structures and cultural, traditional, and local knowledge systems. In this regard, González de Molina and Petersen (2019) conceptualise agroecology as both a sustainability strategy and a strategic framework for economic restructuring and social justice advancement. One of the key indicators of success in governance models is therefore the production and sharing of knowledge. The tools outlined in studies exploring the use of open data infrastructures and participatory monitoring systems in agroecological planning serve to democratise these processes (FAO & The World Bank, 2020). The Ecopolitana plan, developed in Italy, provides a comprehensive example of the integration of agroecological principles with urban design, multi-functional land use and governance-oriented sustainability (Del Fabbro Machado et al., 2022). As previously noted, multi-criteria decision-making tools, such as MCEGIS, are particularly useful within planning frameworks. As demonstrated in the studies by Zhang et al. (2013) and Zaki et al. (2023), these tools offer objective criteria for identifying suitable areas for agroecological 270 Parcels officially designated as first-class agricultural land—such as those at risk of flooding or with high groundwater levels—have demonstrated how inaccurate ecological classifications can weaken productive potential and undermine conservation efforts. Participants noted that uncertainties surrounding the accuracy and timeliness of the datasets employed in planning systems hinder the ability to make planning decisions based on ecological functionality. For instance, the State Hydraulic Works’ planning approach, characterised by concrete-lined irrigation systems and outdated hydrological data, was frequently criticised for being inadequate in addressing the irregular precipitation patterns and flood risks brought about by climate change. It was also noted that non-agricultural land uses—such as wedding venues, film and television production sets and weekend tourist facilities—have increasingly encroached upon agricultural land due to loopholes in legislation and a lack of institutional oversight. These trends have been reported to accelerate ecological degradation and reduce the environmental effectiveness of agricultural areas. Participants emphasised that, although such structures are often licensed as ‘temporary’ or ‘lightweight’ buildings, they have a lasting impact. In this context, participants pointed out the inadequacy of a purely conservation-oriented approach, highlighting the need for an approach based on principles of restorative and productive land use instead. The importance of integrating the ecological rationale into planning decisions was frequently emphasised, rather than limiting nature-based resilience to the formal preservation of green spaces. Permaculture, agroforestry, and carbon farming were considered to be viable strategies 271 for revitalising soil, supporting biodiversity, and enhancing the ecosystem services of agricultural landscapes in urban and peri-urban areas. The multi-functional objectives of these strategies proposed by participants include increasing land productivity, carbon sequestration capacity, microclimate regulation, and water retention. However, it was stated that deficits in institutional capacity and knowledge gaps hinder accurate ecological assessments of land parcels, and that field inspections are sometimes carried out superficially or are susceptible to political influence. The lack of technical expertise and weak coordination among stakeholders in environmentally sensitive areas, in particular, limits the systematic implementation of nature-based planning. Another recurring theme in ecology-focused discussions was the belief that transforming environmental responsibility culture requires education. Participants emphasised the importance of early-stage ecological education, through initiatives such as school gardens and public education programmes, for fostering long-term commitment to sustainable land use. International examples from Europe and the United States, such as waste separation and composting practices, were presented as cases demonstrating how public participation can yield positive ecological outcomes. The fact that some Beykoz producers have started producing their own compost, using local seeds and installing rainwater harvesting systems indicates that this awareness is also taking root locally. Composting and organic waste recycling were regarded as components of a circular food system that could enhance soil productivity in Beykoz and reduce the ecological footprint of urban consumption. 272 Overall, the findings suggest that the approach to agroecological urbanism in Beykoz should prioritise ecosystem-based planning and adopt restorative land management strategies. In this framework, nature-based resilience encompasses more than adapting to environmental pressures; it also involves re-establishing meaningful ecological relationships and improving the environmental performance of urban systems through inclusive, evidence-based planning. Recasting the human–nature relationship as one of mutual responsibility and commoning reveals that the agroecological transition is an ethical responsibility as well as an ecological necessity. 4.3. Institutional Functioning in Planning and Governance Structures The workshop revealed the deep institutional fragmentation and governance challenges that hinder agroecological transition. A recurring theme among all participants was the misalignment between central and local institutions. In particular, the lack of coordination between the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, urban planning authorities and local governments was emphasised repeatedly. This was framed as a governance issue intertwined with a structural vulnerability that directly affects the sustainability of urban agricultural production. Participants stated that the root causes of this misalignment lie in overlapping jurisdictions, conflicting legal regulations and political disagreements. Notably, the absence of a shared planning infrastructure based on current data across different institutions leads to uncertainty regarding the status, usage, and potential transformation of agricultural land. For instance, unauthorised constructions on agricultural land technically fall within the jurisdiction of municipalities; however, the lack 273 of coordination with district-level agricultural directorates renders such inspections ineffective. Participants also shared other concrete examples, revealing that an initiative approved by one institution could be blocked by another. In some cases, political tensions were said to influence technical decision-making processes. There was a broad consensus that such governance failures undermine the capacity of the planning system to protect agricultural land and support its productive use. Agroecological urbanism requires a reorientation of institutions based on participatory, multi-actor governance. Participants in the workshop emphasised the urgent need for an integrated planning approach that includes state institutions, producers, civil society organisations, cooperatives, and educational institutions. The existing institutional structures were criticised for being rigid and top-down, and for excluding producer knowledge and community-based experience from planning and policymaking processes. This was assessed as confining planning culture to a reactive rather than proactive mode. Many participants explicitly expressed this exclusion with the statement, “decisions about us are being made without us.” Participants emphasised that producers should be acknowledged as stakeholders, while also being actively involved in the co-design of agricultural and spatial policies. The proposed mechanisms included participatory budgeting, collaborative land use planning and transparent monitoring systems. It was further emphasised that these mechanisms must have a tangible impact on decision-making processes and not just be a form of symbolic inclusion. Participants also suggested testing and 274 scaling these approaches through pilot projects that allow for institutional innovation at the local level. It was noted that the legitimacy and professional identity of agricultural labour can only be reconstructed through policy-level recognition and institutional support. Proposed measures included expanding technical support mechanisms, improving access to subsidies, developing agricultural employment programmes for young people and investing in data-driven monitoring systems. The importance of considering agricultural education as a form of governance capacity, as well as a vocational field, was emphasised. In this context, institutions such as faculties of agriculture, cooperative academies, and local knowledge centres were identified as key structures for enhancing producer knowledge and fostering a culture of participatory governance. Participants expressed the need to reinstate intermediary institutions— such as the State Planning Organisation—or to establish agricultural units at the municipal level that are capable of conducting strategic planning. Public procurement and municipal markets were identified as particularly effective tools for promoting economic justice for producers by eliminating intermediaries and ensuring price stability. These interventions were considered to contribute to the development of economic and governance-related justice. In conclusion, the findings suggest that implementing an agroecological urbanism approach requires governance models that prioritise coordination, inclusivity, and transparency. The transformation of planning tools into instruments of resilience requires technical capabilities and institutional innovations that are grounded in ecological, social, and 275 economic justice. In the case of Beykoz, aligning planning, agricultural, and community needs within a participatory governance framework is key to the agroecological transition. Developing the institutional capacity in this direction will address current demands while proactively preparing for a future shaped by deepening climate crises and social inequalities. 5. Discussion: A Call to Planning Arising from the Agroecological Transition The key findings of this research demonstrate that the agroecological urbanism approach reframes urban resilience—viewing it not as a simple response mechanism to crises, but as a holistic opportunity for transformation in the face of the systemic inequalities that produce them. This approach offers a new epistemological orientation for urban planning, influencing both the construction of societal subjectivity and the redefinition of the relationship between humans and nature (Colding & Barthel, 2013; Vale, 2014). The findings from the Beykoz case study reveal that resilience is more than a technical matter; it also concerns justice, representation, and the co-construction of shared urban life. In relation to the first research question, agroecological urbanism defines resilience not through centralised or standardised solutions, but through strategies that are actor-based, grounded in local knowledge systems, and oriented toward collective production. The experiences from Beykoz offer compelling insights into how such a transformation can take place both spatially and culturally. The everyday practices of producers reveal that agricultural production serves as both a means of livelihood and a foundation for collective existence and a practice of belonging. This aligns with what Tornaghi and Dehaene’s (2019) description of ‘prefigurative 276 urban practices’—community-led initiatives that model alternative urban futures. Therefore, agroecological urbanism aspires to make cities more resilient to future uncertainties while reimagining them as spaces of shared, egalitarian, and imaginative urban life. In relation to the second research question, it is evident how vulnerabilities at the societal, ecological, and institutional levels shape resilience strategies. At the societal level, the devaluation of agricultural labour, intergenerational ruptures, and the commodification of rural life; at the ecological level, speculative land use, dysfunctional classifications, and the formalisation of nature-based solutions; and at the institutional level, fragmented governance structures and crises of representation—all represent key manifestations of these vulnerabilities. However, identifying these vulnerabilities alone is not sufficient; they must be addressed through planning practices that are holistic, participatory, and context-sensitive. At this point, micro-scale initiatives in Beykoz—such as seed sharing, school gardens, composting cycles, and local marketing systems—carry the potential to create alternative spaces of resilience in response to systemic vulnerabilities. These practices contribute to both environmental and economic outcomes and support the development of new societal subjectivities and governance cultures. Still, the sustainability of such practices depends on more than just collective will; it also requires institutional innovation, flexible governance, and multi-level coordination based on knowledge within the planning discipline (Weidner et al., 2019; FAO & The World Bank, 2020). Therefore, planning institutions must possess the capacity to facilitate cross-actor and cross-scale collaboration, trust-building and shared learning processes, as well as technical expertise. 277 Turning to the third research question, the experience of Beykoz can serve as an instructive model for cities seeking to develop agroecological strategies at the metropolitan scale—demonstrating how the local can be articulated through a universal planning language. Neither fully rural nor a typical urban setting, Beykoz's hybrid character positions it as a living laboratory for multi-functional land use, multi-scalar governance, and the coexistence of cultural diversity. Consequently, the strategies developed here could provide valuable insights for Beykoz and other cities with similar characteristics, as well as for all planning approaches related to metropolitan agriculture, nature-based resilience, and the rural–urban continuum. From the perspective of urban planning, these findings convey the following core message: agroecological urbanism is not just a new theme or sectoral policy; it is a paradigm that redefines the approach, tools and focus of urban planning. This paradigm positions planning not simply as the management of space, but as a framework for reproducing commons, democratising knowledge systems, and transforming vulnerabilities through justice (Altieri et al., 2015; González de Molina & Petersen, 2019). The success of the agroecological transition depends less on the technical capacity of planning and more on its political courage, ethical orientation and ability to facilitate collective action. 6. Conclusion This study examines the relationship between agroecological urbanism and urban resilience in Beykoz, conceptualising resilience as a dynamic process that reveals the transformative potential of cities at societal, ecological, and institutional levels, rather than as a capacity limited to 278 crisis response. Agroecological urbanism thus emerges as a strategic framework that goes beyond technical solutions, offering an approach shaped by the principles of social justice, ecological integrity, and pluralistic governance. The research findings show that agroecological practices in Beykoz have become components of a multi-layered urban infrastructure that constructs resilience through production-oriented interventions as well as by establishing new relationships among people, food, and ecosystems. These examples demonstrate that urban planning must move beyond resource allocation and regulation to recognise the strategic value of collective practices such as community building, knowledge sharing, and the organisation of shared ways of living. In this context, the concept of ‘adaptation’ should not be viewed as a passive response to environmental or governance-related changes. From the perspective of agroecological urbanism, on the contrary, adaptation is redefined as a set of practices that can unfold across different scales, strengthening inter-community relationships and enhancing the capacity for transformation. Allowing such practices to be incorporated into planning processes increases environmental resilience and reinforces spatial justice, cultural continuity and social inclusion. The experience in Beykoz shows that urban planning can evolve into a transformative instrument when agroecological principles are internalised simultaneously at spatial, governance, and cultural levels. This approach is notable for its ability to create coherence within fragmented structures, develop inclusive models in the face of exclusionary systems and incorporate community perspectives into decision-making processes. 279 Ultimately, this research reveals that the approach of agroecological urbanism should not be understood merely as a collection of local practices, but rather as a transformative urban planning paradigm. Resilience-oriented planning is shaped by ethical considerations, political will and collective action as much as by technical expertise. The construction of cities that are adaptive, just, and capable of engaging in reciprocal relationships with nature requires a commitment to this multilayered transformation. 286 Co-founder, Tasarım Rehberleri (Design Guides R&D Assoc.), (2021-…) İnci OLGUN E-mail: [email protected] Educational Status BSc: Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, 1997. MSc: Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Urban Design, 2000. PhD: Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Urbanism, 2009. Professional Experiences Architect, Freelance, (1996-2000) Architect, Bio Design, (1999-2000) Res. Assist., Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, (2001-2009) Lecturer, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, (2009-…) Lecturer, Okan University, (2012-2019) Co-founder, Tasarım Rehberleri (Design Guides R&D Assoc.), (2021-…)