The aim of this study is to strengthen the urban rights and quality of life of vulnerable groups by contributing to the development of a new approach and standards in urban social services. Toward this goal, we present the socially innovative service model (SISM) which ensures a framework of daytime care and support centers for disabled individuals established in the Eyüp district, wherein generally the lower and lower-middle classes of Istanbul reside. SISM provides an important perspective on rights-based social policies as well as community and city interaction, thereby enabling interdisciplinary study of social sciences and planning.
AndersenH.S. (2002) ‘Excluded Places: The Interaction Between Segregation, Urban Decay and Deprived Neighbourhoods’, Housing, Theory and Society19(3–4): 153.
2.
BackovićV. (2018) ‘Contribution of Pierre Bourdieu’s Theory to the Analysis of the Process of Gentrification’, Sociologija i Prostor56(2): 99–118.
3.
BeharD.İslamT. (2006) Gentrification in Istanbul. Istanbul: Bilgi University Press.
4.
BladC.FallovM.A. (2018) ‘Social Welfare Responses in a Neoliberal Era: Adaptive Responses, Sustained Need, and Exacerbated Hardships’, in BladC.FallovM.A. (eds) Social Welfare Responses in a Neoliberal Era: Policies, Practices, and Social Problems (Critical Global Studies), pp. 1–17. Leiden: Brill Publishing. Available online at: https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004384118/BP000001.xml
5.
BotermanW.R.MantingD.MusterdS. (2018) ‘Understanding the Social Geographies of Urban Regions through the Socio-Economic and Cultural Dimension of Class’, Population, Space and Place24(5): 1–4.
6.
CastellsM. (2010) The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture – End of Millennium, vol. 3, 2nd edn.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
7.
FreemanM. (2016) ‘Neoliberal Policies and Human Rights’, Journal of Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Law (D.E.Ü. Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi)17(2): 141–64.
8.
GiddensA. (1991a) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
9.
GiddensA. (1991b) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
10.
GodinB. (2012) ‘Social Innovation: Utopias of Innovation from c. 1830 to the Present’, Working Paper 11, Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation Montréal. Available online at: http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/SocialInnovation_2012.pdf
11.
GonzalezS.MoulaertF.MartinelliF. (2010) ‘Chapter 3: ALMOLIN, How to Analyse Social Innovation at the Local Level?’, in MoulaertF.MartinelliF.SwyngedouwE.GonzalezS. (eds) Can Neighbourhoods Save the City?Abingdon: Routledge. Available online at: https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=mJ0tCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&lpg
12.
GürpınarA. (2014) ‘Toys in a Globalizing City: Contemporary Production Networks and Design Characteristics of Toys in Istanbul,’ PhD Thesis in Istanbul Technical University, Department of Industrial Product Design, 39. Available online at: https://polen.itu.edu.tr/bitstream/11527/12405/1/10039970.pdf
13.
HallP.A.LamontM. (2013) ‘Introduction: Social Resilience in the Neo-liberal Era’, in HallP.A.LamontM. (eds) Social Resilience in the Neo-Liberal Era, pp. 1–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available online at: https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=ngcgV7nUBdQC&printsec
14.
HenigJ.R. (1981) ‘Gentrification and Displacement of the Elderly: An Empirical Analysis’, Gerontologist21(1): 67–75.
15.
Istanbul Development Agency (ISTKA) (2011) ‘Report of Supported Projects 2011.’ Report, Istanbul Development Agency (ISTKA), Istanbul, Turkey. Available online at: https://www.istka.org.tr/projeler/tamamlanan-projeler/
16.
Istanbul Development Agency (ISTKA) (2012) ‘Report of Supported Projects 2012-II.’ Report, Istanbul Development Agency (ISTKA), Istanbul, Turkey. Available online at: https://www.istka.org.tr/projeler/tamamlanan-projeler/
17.
KartalF. (2009) ‘Privatized Citizenship: Transformation of Health Care Policies in Turkey’, Public Administration Journal42(2): 23–43.
18.
MeralB.F. (2014) ‘Obstacles to Special Education for Students with Intellectual Disabilities in Turkey: A Brief Report’, European Journal of Special Needs Education30(1): 93–105.
MusterdS.MarcińczakS.van HamM.TammaruT. (2017) ‘Socioeconomic Segregation in European Capital Cities: Increasing Separation between Poor and Rich’, Urban Geography38(7): 1062–83.
24.
PhillsJ.A.DeiglmeierK.MillerD.T. (2008) ‘Rediscovering Social Innovation’, Stanford Social Innovation Review6: 34–43.
PortneyK.E. (2003) Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously, Economic Development, The Environment, and Quality of Life in American Cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
RazackN. (2005) ‘Bodies on the Move: Spatialized Locations, Identities, and Nationality in International Work’, Social Justice32(4): 87–104.
28.
RazackN. (2009) ‘Decolonizing the Pedagogy and Practice of International Social Work’, International Social Work52(4): 9–21.
Tekeliİ. (1968) ‘Social Systems, Social Change and Settlement Structure’, Doctoral Thesis, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
32.
Tufanİ.YamanH.ArunÖ. (2007) ‘Brief Note: Disability in Turkey: Suggestions for Overcoming Current Problems’, International Social Work50(6): 839–46.
Van EwijkH. (2009) ‘Citizenship-Based Social Work’, International Social Work52(2): 167–79.
35.
WestleyF.AntadzeN. (2010) ‘Making a Difference, Strategies for Scaling Social Innovation for Greater Impact’, The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal15(2): 1–19.
