Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Konut ve Çevresi Kavramına Yaşam Kalitesi Bağlamındaki Yaklaşımların Değerlendirilmesi

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 33, 852 - 872, 28.09.2021
https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.845251

Öz

İnsanlar ve yaşadıkları çevreyi değerlendiren yaşam kalitesi kavramının kökeni çok eskilere dayanmasına rağmen yapılan araştırmalar öncelikli olarak kavramın uzlaşılan net bir tanımının olmadığını ortaya koymaktadır. Birçok kaynakta yaşam doyumu, genel refah, yaşam memnuniyeti olarak ifade edilen kavramın, farklı kaynaklarda 100’den fazla tanımı kaydedilmiştir. Yaşam kalitesi araştırmaları; bireylerin refah hissini oluşturan etmenlerin nedenlerini araştırma ve etkilerini ortaya koyma, memnuniyet ve memnuniyetsizliğin toplumsal ve mekânsal dağılımına ilişkin bilgi sağlama, araştırma sonuçlarına bağlı etkin politikalar ortaya koyup bu politikaların mekânsal etkilerini takip etme gibi amaçlar taşımaktadır. Tanımlar dışında özellikle farklı ülkelerde ve birçok akademik çalışmada yaşam kalitesi ölçümleri için farklı göstergelerin kullanıldığı görülmektedir. Bu noktada yaşam kalitesi araştırmalarında, kişinin yaşam kalitesinin sosyal çevre ve fiziksel çevre olmak üzere iki temel faktöre bağlı olduğunu ortaya çıkmıştır. Özellikle bireyin mekân ve çevresiyle olan ilişkisi, araştırmaların temel noktasını oluşturmuştur. Bu çalışma kapsamında yapılan literatür araştırmasıyla konut ve çevresi için kullanıcıların memnuniyet düzeylerini ve buna bağlı olarak yaşam kalitesi ölçme amacı taşıyan modeller irdelenmiştir.

Kaynakça

  • Amerigo, M. ve Aragones, J. (1997). A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47-57.
  • Becker, M. ve Diamond, R. (1997). New developments in quality of life measurement in schizophrenia. H. &. H. Katschnig içinde, Quality Of Life İn Mental Disorders (s. 119-133). New York: Wiley.
  • Boarini, R., Comola, M., Keulenaer, F., Robert , M., & Conal , S. (2010). The determinants of well-being in OECD countries. Paris: OECD Statistics Directorate, 6-35.
  • Boelhouwer, J. ve Noll, H.-H. (2014). Objective quality of life. A. Michalos içinde, Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. London & New York: Routledge.
  • Campbell , A. (1981). The sense of well-being in America: tecent patterns and trends. Social Forces, 263-289.
  • Coombes, P. ve Cook, N. (1998). QOL as a focus for strategies and benchmarking for cities. The First International Conference On Qol İn Cities: Issues And Perspective. Singapore.
  • Dalkey, N. ve Rourke, D. (1972). The Delphi procedure and rating quality of life factors. U. S. United States. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Studies Division içinde, The Quality of Life Concept: A Potential New Tool for Decision-makers, Volume 1 (s. 210-218). United States. Environmental Protection Agency.
  • De Hollander, A.E.M; RVIM. (2000). National Institute for public health and the environment in the Netherlands. 5e Nationale Milieu Verkenningen.
  • Diener, E. ve Eunkook, S. (1997). Measuring QOL economic,social, and subjective ındicator. Social Indicators Research, 189-216.
  • Dissart, J. ve Deller, S. (2000). Quality of life in the planning literature. Journal Of Planning Literature, 135-161.
  • Enosh, N., Leslau , A., Shacham, J. (1984). Residential quality assessment: a conceptual model and empirical test. Social Indicators Research volume, 453-476.
  • Evcil Türksever (2001). Türkiye’de büyükşehir alanlarında yaşam kalitesinin değerlendirilmesine yönelik bir yöntem denemesi. Doktora Tezi. İstanbul: lTÜ, FBE.
  • Fadda, G. (2003). Urban sustainability, quality of life and gender. In City And Gender - International Discourse On Gender, Urbanism And Architecture (s. 177-190). Opladen, Germany: Leske + Budrich.
  • Francescato, G., Weidemann, S., Anderson, J., Chenoweth, R. (1974). Evaluating residents’ satisfaction in housing for low and moderate ıncome families: a multimethod approach. Illinois: Housing Research and Development University of Illinois, 285-295.
  • Galster, G. ve Hesser, G. (1981). Residential satisfaction: compositional and contextual correlates. Environment and Behavior, 735-758.
  • Gökmen, L. (2016). Konutta proje ligi. Ekonomist:http://www.ekonomist.com.tr/kapak-konusu/konutta-proje-ligi.html adresinden alındı
  • Gür, M. (2009). Kullanıcıların konut ve çevresel kalite memnuniyetinin belirleyicileri: istanbul metropoliten alan örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Bursa: Uludağ Üniversitesi / Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  • Gürel Üçer, Z. (2009). Kentsel yaşam kalitesinin belediye hizmetleri kapsamında belirlenmesine ve geliştirilmesine yönelik bir yaklaşım : orta ölçekli kent örnekleri. Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  • Harland, D. (1972). Social ındicators: toward the measurement of quality of life. Ottawa: Regional Economic Expansion .
  • Je, H., Lee, J., Cheong, S., Shin, S.-W. (2007). A study on residential quality ındex of super high-rise apartment housing through survey with experts. Proceedings Of The International Conference On Sustainable Building Asia, Seul, 899-904.
  • Jenkinson, C. (2020,). Quality of life. Encyclopædia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/quality-of-life adresinden alındı
  • Kellekci, Ö. ve Berköz, L. (2006). Konut ve çevresel kalite memnuniyetini yükselten faktörler. İtü Dergisi/A Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 167-178.
  • Lansing, J. ve Marans, R. (1969). Evaluation of neighbourhood quality. Journal Of The American Planning Association, 195-199.
  • Liu, B. ve Hsieh, C. (1986). Effects of educational expenditures on regional ınequality in the social QOL. American Journal Of Economics And Sociology, 45(2), 131–144.
  • Marans, R. W. (2007). Kentsel yaşam kalitesinin ölçülmesi. Mimarlık Dergisi, 335.
  • Marans, R., & Spreckelmeyer, K. (1981). Evaluating Built Environments: A Behavioral Approach. Michigan: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
  • Marsella, A., Levi, L., Ekblad, S. (1993). The importance of including quality of life indices in international social and economic development activities. Applied And Preventive Psychology, 55-67.
  • Masilimani, R. (2007). Peoples perception of quality of life concept in urban development process: Case Chennai. Anna Üniversitesi, Mimarlık ve Planlama Fakültesi, Chennai, 1-246.
  • Murdie, R., Rhyne, D., Bates, J. (1992). Modeling quality of life ındicators in Canada: A feasibility analysis. Toronto: York University, Institute for Social Research, 14-59.
  • Murray, J. (1900). Murray's hand-book constantinople Brusa, and the Throad. London: John Murray.
  • Noll, H.-H. (2004). Social ındicators and quality of life research: background, achievements and current trends. N. Genov içinde, Advances in Sociological Knowledge. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 151-181.
  • Perloff, H. (1969). The quality of the urban environment. Washington D.C: John Hopkins Press for Resorces For The Future.
  • Prutkin, J. ve Feinstein, A. (2002). A history of quality of life measurements. Yale Medicine Thesis Digital Library: https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1423&context=ymtdl adresinden alındı, 1-25
  • Rice, R., Frone , M., McFarlin, D. (1992). Work-Nonwork conflict and the perceived quality of life. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 155-168.
  • Roitman, S. (2010). Gated communities: definitions, causes and consequences. Urban Design and Planning, 163(1), 31-38.
  • Rojek, C. (2000). Indexing, dragging and the social construction of tourist sights. C. R. Urry içinde, Touring Cultures. Transformation of Travel and Theory, New York: Routledge, 52-74.
  • Schalock, R. (2004). Quality of life: What we know and do not know. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 48 (3), 203-216.
  • Shookner , M. (1997). A quality of life ındex for Ontario. Conference On The State Of Living Standards And The Quality Of Life İn Canada. Ontario - Canada: Ontario Social Development Council, 1-25.
  • Streimikiene, D. (2015). Quality of life and housing. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, (5/2)140-145.
  • Torlak Evinç, S. ve Yavuzçehre Savaş, P. (2008). Denizli kent yoksullarının yaşam kalitesi üzerine bir inceleme. Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, 23-44.
  • TÜBA (2003). Yaşam kalitesi göstergeleri, Türkiye için bir veri sistemi önerisi. Ankara: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi.
  • TÜİK. (2017). Yaşam Memnuniyeti Araştırması 2003-2017. TÜİK yayınlar: https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/yayin/views/visitorPages/index.zul adresinden alındı Türkoğlu, H., Bölen, F., Baran, P., Marans, R. (2008). İstanbul’da yaşam kalitesinin ölçülmesi. İtü Dergisi A – Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 103-113.
  • Türkoğlu, H. (1997). Residents’ satisfaction of housing environments: The Case of Istanbul, Turkey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 55-67.
  • Türksever , A. ve Atalik, G. (2001). Possibilities and limitations for the measurement of the quality of life in urban areas. Social Indicators Research, 163-187.
  • Van Kamp, I., Kees, L., Gooitske , M., Augustinus , D. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape And Urban Planning, 5-18.
  • Veenhoven, R. (2004). Quality-of-life research, 1-23.
  • Weidemann, S. ve Anderson, J. (1985). A conceptual framework for residential satisfaction. I. Altman , & C. Werner içinde, Home Environments. Human Behavior and Environment (Advances in Theory and Research), Baston: Springer, 153-182.
  • WHO. (1995). The world health organization quality of life assessment. Soc. Sci. Med.
  • Wish, N. (1986). Are we really measuring quality of life. American Journal Of Economics And Sociology, 343-358.

Evaluation of Approaches to the Concept of Hous-ing and Its Environment in the Context of Quality of Life

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 33, 852 - 872, 28.09.2021
https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.845251

Öz

Although the origin of the concept of quality of life dates back to ancient times, researches primarily reveal that the concept does not have a agreed definition upon. More than 100 definitions of the concept, which is expressed as life satisfaction, general welfare, life satisfaction have been recorded in different sources. Quality of life Studies aim to investigate the causes and effects of the factors that make up the sense of well-being of individuals, to provide information on the social and spatial distribution of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, for establishing effective policies and to follow the spatial effects of these policies, it is seen that different indicators are used for quality of life measures, especially in different countries and in many academic studies. It has been revealed in the quality of life studies that the quality of life of the person depends on social environment and physical environment factors. The relationship of the individual with the place and its environment constituted the main point of the research. Within the scope of this study the models aiming to measure the satisfaction levels of the users for the house and its surroundings and accordingly the quality of life were conducted.

Kaynakça

  • Amerigo, M. ve Aragones, J. (1997). A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47-57.
  • Becker, M. ve Diamond, R. (1997). New developments in quality of life measurement in schizophrenia. H. &. H. Katschnig içinde, Quality Of Life İn Mental Disorders (s. 119-133). New York: Wiley.
  • Boarini, R., Comola, M., Keulenaer, F., Robert , M., & Conal , S. (2010). The determinants of well-being in OECD countries. Paris: OECD Statistics Directorate, 6-35.
  • Boelhouwer, J. ve Noll, H.-H. (2014). Objective quality of life. A. Michalos içinde, Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. London & New York: Routledge.
  • Campbell , A. (1981). The sense of well-being in America: tecent patterns and trends. Social Forces, 263-289.
  • Coombes, P. ve Cook, N. (1998). QOL as a focus for strategies and benchmarking for cities. The First International Conference On Qol İn Cities: Issues And Perspective. Singapore.
  • Dalkey, N. ve Rourke, D. (1972). The Delphi procedure and rating quality of life factors. U. S. United States. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Studies Division içinde, The Quality of Life Concept: A Potential New Tool for Decision-makers, Volume 1 (s. 210-218). United States. Environmental Protection Agency.
  • De Hollander, A.E.M; RVIM. (2000). National Institute for public health and the environment in the Netherlands. 5e Nationale Milieu Verkenningen.
  • Diener, E. ve Eunkook, S. (1997). Measuring QOL economic,social, and subjective ındicator. Social Indicators Research, 189-216.
  • Dissart, J. ve Deller, S. (2000). Quality of life in the planning literature. Journal Of Planning Literature, 135-161.
  • Enosh, N., Leslau , A., Shacham, J. (1984). Residential quality assessment: a conceptual model and empirical test. Social Indicators Research volume, 453-476.
  • Evcil Türksever (2001). Türkiye’de büyükşehir alanlarında yaşam kalitesinin değerlendirilmesine yönelik bir yöntem denemesi. Doktora Tezi. İstanbul: lTÜ, FBE.
  • Fadda, G. (2003). Urban sustainability, quality of life and gender. In City And Gender - International Discourse On Gender, Urbanism And Architecture (s. 177-190). Opladen, Germany: Leske + Budrich.
  • Francescato, G., Weidemann, S., Anderson, J., Chenoweth, R. (1974). Evaluating residents’ satisfaction in housing for low and moderate ıncome families: a multimethod approach. Illinois: Housing Research and Development University of Illinois, 285-295.
  • Galster, G. ve Hesser, G. (1981). Residential satisfaction: compositional and contextual correlates. Environment and Behavior, 735-758.
  • Gökmen, L. (2016). Konutta proje ligi. Ekonomist:http://www.ekonomist.com.tr/kapak-konusu/konutta-proje-ligi.html adresinden alındı
  • Gür, M. (2009). Kullanıcıların konut ve çevresel kalite memnuniyetinin belirleyicileri: istanbul metropoliten alan örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Bursa: Uludağ Üniversitesi / Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  • Gürel Üçer, Z. (2009). Kentsel yaşam kalitesinin belediye hizmetleri kapsamında belirlenmesine ve geliştirilmesine yönelik bir yaklaşım : orta ölçekli kent örnekleri. Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  • Harland, D. (1972). Social ındicators: toward the measurement of quality of life. Ottawa: Regional Economic Expansion .
  • Je, H., Lee, J., Cheong, S., Shin, S.-W. (2007). A study on residential quality ındex of super high-rise apartment housing through survey with experts. Proceedings Of The International Conference On Sustainable Building Asia, Seul, 899-904.
  • Jenkinson, C. (2020,). Quality of life. Encyclopædia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/quality-of-life adresinden alındı
  • Kellekci, Ö. ve Berköz, L. (2006). Konut ve çevresel kalite memnuniyetini yükselten faktörler. İtü Dergisi/A Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 167-178.
  • Lansing, J. ve Marans, R. (1969). Evaluation of neighbourhood quality. Journal Of The American Planning Association, 195-199.
  • Liu, B. ve Hsieh, C. (1986). Effects of educational expenditures on regional ınequality in the social QOL. American Journal Of Economics And Sociology, 45(2), 131–144.
  • Marans, R. W. (2007). Kentsel yaşam kalitesinin ölçülmesi. Mimarlık Dergisi, 335.
  • Marans, R., & Spreckelmeyer, K. (1981). Evaluating Built Environments: A Behavioral Approach. Michigan: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
  • Marsella, A., Levi, L., Ekblad, S. (1993). The importance of including quality of life indices in international social and economic development activities. Applied And Preventive Psychology, 55-67.
  • Masilimani, R. (2007). Peoples perception of quality of life concept in urban development process: Case Chennai. Anna Üniversitesi, Mimarlık ve Planlama Fakültesi, Chennai, 1-246.
  • Murdie, R., Rhyne, D., Bates, J. (1992). Modeling quality of life ındicators in Canada: A feasibility analysis. Toronto: York University, Institute for Social Research, 14-59.
  • Murray, J. (1900). Murray's hand-book constantinople Brusa, and the Throad. London: John Murray.
  • Noll, H.-H. (2004). Social ındicators and quality of life research: background, achievements and current trends. N. Genov içinde, Advances in Sociological Knowledge. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 151-181.
  • Perloff, H. (1969). The quality of the urban environment. Washington D.C: John Hopkins Press for Resorces For The Future.
  • Prutkin, J. ve Feinstein, A. (2002). A history of quality of life measurements. Yale Medicine Thesis Digital Library: https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1423&context=ymtdl adresinden alındı, 1-25
  • Rice, R., Frone , M., McFarlin, D. (1992). Work-Nonwork conflict and the perceived quality of life. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 155-168.
  • Roitman, S. (2010). Gated communities: definitions, causes and consequences. Urban Design and Planning, 163(1), 31-38.
  • Rojek, C. (2000). Indexing, dragging and the social construction of tourist sights. C. R. Urry içinde, Touring Cultures. Transformation of Travel and Theory, New York: Routledge, 52-74.
  • Schalock, R. (2004). Quality of life: What we know and do not know. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 48 (3), 203-216.
  • Shookner , M. (1997). A quality of life ındex for Ontario. Conference On The State Of Living Standards And The Quality Of Life İn Canada. Ontario - Canada: Ontario Social Development Council, 1-25.
  • Streimikiene, D. (2015). Quality of life and housing. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, (5/2)140-145.
  • Torlak Evinç, S. ve Yavuzçehre Savaş, P. (2008). Denizli kent yoksullarının yaşam kalitesi üzerine bir inceleme. Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, 23-44.
  • TÜBA (2003). Yaşam kalitesi göstergeleri, Türkiye için bir veri sistemi önerisi. Ankara: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi.
  • TÜİK. (2017). Yaşam Memnuniyeti Araştırması 2003-2017. TÜİK yayınlar: https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/yayin/views/visitorPages/index.zul adresinden alındı Türkoğlu, H., Bölen, F., Baran, P., Marans, R. (2008). İstanbul’da yaşam kalitesinin ölçülmesi. İtü Dergisi A – Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 103-113.
  • Türkoğlu, H. (1997). Residents’ satisfaction of housing environments: The Case of Istanbul, Turkey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 55-67.
  • Türksever , A. ve Atalik, G. (2001). Possibilities and limitations for the measurement of the quality of life in urban areas. Social Indicators Research, 163-187.
  • Van Kamp, I., Kees, L., Gooitske , M., Augustinus , D. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape And Urban Planning, 5-18.
  • Veenhoven, R. (2004). Quality-of-life research, 1-23.
  • Weidemann, S. ve Anderson, J. (1985). A conceptual framework for residential satisfaction. I. Altman , & C. Werner içinde, Home Environments. Human Behavior and Environment (Advances in Theory and Research), Baston: Springer, 153-182.
  • WHO. (1995). The world health organization quality of life assessment. Soc. Sci. Med.
  • Wish, N. (1986). Are we really measuring quality of life. American Journal Of Economics And Sociology, 343-358.
Toplam 50 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Betül Hatipoğlu Şahin 0000-0002-0516-7120

Ayşegül Tereci 0000-0001-5989-9565

Yayımlanma Tarihi 28 Eylül 2021
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021 Cilt: 12 Sayı: 33

Kaynak Göster

APA Hatipoğlu Şahin, B., & Tereci, A. (2021). Konut ve Çevresi Kavramına Yaşam Kalitesi Bağlamındaki Yaklaşımların Değerlendirilmesi. İDEALKENT, 12(33), 852-872. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.845251