Evaluates the Slow City Movement through qualitative methods and the DEMATEL technique, suggesting key dimensions and their interrelations.
The aim of this study is to examine the Slow City Movement within a multidimensional framework, revealing its conceptual, theoretical, and dimensional revisions. A two-stage methodology was used in the study. In the first stage, data collected from 10 field experts were analyzed using the Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) technique. In this stage, the dimensions included in the Citta Slow International Charter were evaluated, weighted, and their effects on each other were determined. In the second stage, qualitative method was used to seek answers to the fundamental theoretical debates of the Slow City. Common areas of discussion related to Slow Cities, such as efficiency, new dimensions, technology relations, and metropolitan applications, were analyzed in light of data collected from a total of 17 field experts. Furthermore, the 73 criteria in the Citta Slow International Charter were thematically categorized, and solutions were proposed for the complex structure of the framework. According to the DEMATEL findings, the most important dimension is “Urban Quality,” while the least important dimension is “Partnership.” It was determined that the dimensions influence each other at various levels. According to the qualitative findings, ‘preventing social acceleration’ is proposed as an independent dimension. On the other hand, technology should not accelerate or transform the slow city while solving urban problems. Here, the concept of “degenerative speed” is defined and advanced for slow cities. • The most important dimension is 'Urban Quality" while the least important dimension is 'Partnership'. All dimensions have an effect on each other. • While technology is necessary, it is limited by the concept of the 'degenerative speed'. • Preventing social acceleration is an important and recommended component of the Slow City Movement. • The Slow City criteria have been made thematic and systematic.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akcakaya et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: