Yürünebilirlik Kavramı ve Çevresel Faktörler Odağında Yaya Kullanımı: Ordu- Akyazı Mahallesi Örneği

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, Ordu kenti, Altınordu ilçesi, Akyazı Mahallesinde yoğun olarak kullanılan bazı bulvar ve caddelerin yürünebilirlik değerinin, belirlenen değerlendirme kriterleri üzerinden puanlandırılması amaçlanmıştır. Elde edilen puanların çevresel özellikler (erişilebilirlik, işlevsellik, fiziksel yapı, güvenlik, görsel kalite ve çekicilik) ile arasındaki ilişkisinin ortaya konulması ise ikincil amaçtır. Materyal ve Yöntem: Çalışma alanı olarak, Ordu ili, Akyazı mahallesinde yoğun kullanıma sahip olan Orgeneral İbrahim Fırtına Bulvarı, Şehit Ali Gaffar Okkan Caddesi, Ahmet Cemal Mağden Caddesi, Yavuz Sultan Selim Caddesi, Akyazı Caddesi, Ali Rıza Gürsoy Caddesi ve Atatürk Bulvarı seçilmiştir. Seçilen yolların yürünebilirliğini ölçmek amacı ile değerlendirme kriterleri oluşturulmuş ve puanlama tablosu hazırlanmıştır. Ayrıca yürünebilirliğin çevresel ilişkisini ortaya koymak amacı ile yollara ilişkin bağlantı, aydınlatma ve erişilebilirlik analizleri yapılmıştır. Araştırma Bulguları: Yapılan saha çalışmaları sonucunda seçilen her yol için farklı puanlar elde edilmiştir. Yapılan değerlendirme sonucunda yolun denize yakın olan kısmı (Orgeneral İbrahim Fırtına Bulvarı) 36 puan alırken, denize 12 metre daha uzak olan yaya yolu (Orgeneral İbrahim Fırtına Bulvarı 2) 20 puan almıştır. Yapılan değerlendirme sonucunda, Atatürk Bulvarı 26, Ali Rıza Gürsoy Caddesi 12, Ahmet Cemal Mağden Caddesi 27, Ali Gaffar Okkan Caddesi 22, Akyazı Caddesi 8, Yavuz Sultan Selim Caddesi ise 23 puan almıştır. Bağlantı, erişilebilirlik ve aydınlatma analizlerinin bu puanlamayı desteklediği ortaya konulmuştur. Sonuç: Sonuç olarak farklı yürünebilirlik puanları elde edilmiş ve yürünebilir çevrelerin özellikleri ortaya konulmuştur. Elde edilen puanları belirleyen en önemli etkenlerin; erişilebilirlik ve fiziksel yapıya ait unsurlar olduğu saptanmıştır. Yürünebilirlik kavramı içerisinde değerlendirilen çevresel faktörlerin yaya kullanımı ile doğru orantılı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yürünebilirlik
• Çevresel özellikler
• Değerlendirme kriterleri
• Yaya bölgesi
• Ordu
• Walkability
• Environmental features
• Evaluation criteria
• Pedestrian zone

The Concept of Walkability and Pedestrian Use in Focus on Environmental Factors: The Case of Ordu-Akyazı Neighbourhood

Abstract

Objective: In this study, it is aimed to score the walkability values of some boulevards and streets, which are used extensively in Ordu city, Altınordu district, Akyazı neighbourhood, based on the determined evaluation criteria. The secondary aim is to reveal the relationship between the obtained scores and environmental characteristics (accessibility, functionality, physical structure, safety, visual quality and attractiveness). Materials and Methods: General İbrahim Fırtına Boulevard, Şehit Ali Gaffar Okkan Street, Ahmet Cemal Mağden Street, Yavuz Sultan Selim Street, Akyazı Street, Ali Rıza Gürsoy Street and Atatürk Boulevard, which are heavily used in the Akyazı neighborhood of Ordu province, were chosen as the study area. In order to measure the walkability of the selected roads, evaluation criteria were created and a scoring table was prepared. In addition, in order to reveal the environmental relationship of walkability, connection, lighting and accessibility analyzes of the roads were made. Results: As a result of the field studies, different scores were achieved for each selected road. As a result of the evaluation, the part of the road that is close to the sea (General İbrahim Fırtına Boulevard) received 36 points, while the far part (General İbrahim Fırtına Boulevard 2) received 20 points. As a result of the evaluation, Atatürk Boulevard 26, Ali Rıza Gürsoy Street 12, Ahmet Cemal Mağden Street 27, Ali Gaffar Okkan Street 22, Akyazı Street 8, Yavuz Sultan Selim Street 23 points. It was revealed that connectivity, accessibility and lighting analyzes support this scoring. Conclusion: As a result, different walkability scores were obtained and the characteristics of walkable environments were revealed. The most important factors determining the obtained scores; It has been determined that there are elements of accessibility and physical structure. It has been concluded that the environmental factors evaluated within the concept of walkability are directly proportional to the use of pedestrians.

Keywords

• Walkability
• Environmental features
• Evaluation criteria
• Pedestrian zone

References

1. Adkins, A., Makarewicz, C., Scanze, M., Ingram, M., & Luhr, G. (2017). Contextualizing walkability: do relationships between built environments and walking vary by socioeconomic context?. Journal of the American Planning Association, 83(3), 296-314.
2. Alkan, İ.N. (2021). Kamusal Mekân Kullanımında Suça Maruz Kalma Korkusu: Ordu Rüsumat Sahili Örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Düzce Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı, Düzce.
3. Alkheder, S., Alkandriy, F., Alkhames, Z., Habeeb, M., Alenezi, R., & Al Kader, A. (2022). Walkability, risk perception and safety assessment among urban college pedestrians in Kuwait. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 86, 10-32.
4. Anonim, (2022). https://www.nufusune.com/60816-ordu-altinordu-akyazi-mahallesi-nufusu#:~:text=AKYAZI%20mahallesi%20n%C3%BCfusu%20(%20beldesine)%20ba%C4%9Fl%C4%B1,Erkek%2C%208.346'si%20Kad%C4%B1nd%C4%B1r. Erişim Tarihi: 05.09.2022.
5. Araya, R., Dunstan, F., Playle, R., Thomas, H., Palmer, S., & Lewis, G. (2006). Perceptions of social capital and the built environment and mental health. Social science & medicine, 62(12), 3072-3083.
6. Bempong, A. E., & Asiamah, N. (2022). Neighbourhood walkability as a moderator of the associations between older Ghanaians’ social activity, and the frequency of walking for transportation: A cross-sectional study with sensitivity analyses. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics, 104660.
7. Bhowmick, D., Winter, S., Stevenson, M., & Vortisch, P. (2021). Exploring the viability of walk-sharing in outdoor urban spaces. Computers, environment and urban systems, 88, 101635.
8. Borst, H. C., de Vries, S. I., Graham, J. M., van Dongen, J. E., Bakker, I., & Miedema, H. M. (2009). Influence of environmental street characteristics on walking route choice of elderly people. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 477-484.

9. Cerin, E., Conway, T. L., Cain, K. L., Kerr, J., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Owen, N., ... & Sallis, J. F. (2013). Sharing good NEWS across the world: developing comparable scores across 12 countries for the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (news). BMC public health, 13(1), 1-14.
10. Chen, C., Li, H., Luo, W., Xie, J., Yao, J., Wu, L., & Xia, Y. (2021). Predicting the effect of street environment on residents' mood states in large urban areas using machine learning and street view images. Science of The Total Environment, 151605.
11. Ercan, M. A., & Belge, Z. S. (2017). Daha Yaşanabilir Kentler İçin Mikro Ölçek Bir Yürünebilirlik Modeli (1). Metu Jfa, 1, 231.
12. Ewing, R., & Handy, S. (2009). Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban design, 14(1), 65-84.
13. Giles-Corti, B., Vernez-Moudon, A., Reis, R., Turrell, G., Dannenberg, A. L., Badland, H., & Owen, N. (2016). City planning and population health: a global challenge. The lancet, 388(10062), 2912-2924.
14. Gündoğdu, H. M., & Dinçer, E. (2020). Tekirdağ Kent Merkezinin “Yürünebilirlik” Açısından Değerlendirilmesinde Bir Yöntem Araştırması A Methodological Research in Evaluation of “Walkability” of Tekirdag City Center. Journal of Planning.
15. Güneş, S. (2007). Grafiti kentsel suç mu sanat mı?. Mimarlık Dergisi, 38-44.
16. Hassan, D. K., & Elkhateeb, A. (2021). Walking experience: Exploring the trilateral interrelation of walkability, temporal perception, and urban ambiance. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 10(3), 516-539.
17. Hacohen, S., Shoval, S., & Shvalb, N. (2020). The paradox of pedestrian's risk aversion. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 142, 105518.
18. Jacobs, J. (2016). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random Press.
19. Koohsari, M. J., McCormack, G. R., Shibata, A., Ishii, K., Yasunaga, A., Nakaya, T., & Oka, K. (2021). The relationship between walk score® and perceived walkability in ultrahigh density areas. Preventive medicine reports, 23, 101393.
20. Kurt, M. M., İskender, E., & Gürbüz, H. E. (2021). Sinyalize Olmayan Yaya Geçitlerinde Sürücü Davranışlarının Yayalara İlk Geçiş Hakkının Verilmesi Açısından Araştırılması. Journal of Investigations on Engineering and Technology, 4(1), 21-27.
21. Külekçi, H. E., & Tezer, A. (2021). Sosyal Altyapı Alanlarına Erişimde Yürünebilirlik Kapasitesinin Ölçülmesi: Bakırköy-Bahçelievler Örneği. Journal of International Social Research, 14(76).
22. Kürkçüoğlu, E., & Ocakçı, M. (2015). Kentsel Dokuda Mekânsal Yönelme Üzerine Bir Algı-Davranış Çalışması: Kadıköy Çarşı Bölgesi. Megaron, 10(3).
23. Lee, S. (2021). Does tree canopy moderate the association between neighborhood walkability and street crime?. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 65, 127336.
24. Li, X., Li, Y., Xia, B., & Han, Y. (2021). Pathways between neighbourhood walkability and mental wellbeing: A case from Hankow, China. Journal of Transport & Health, 20, 101012.
25. Liang, Y., D’Uva, D., Scandiffio, A., & Rolando, A. (2022). The more walkable, the more livable?--can urban attractiveness improve urban vitality?. Transportation Research Procedia, 60, 322-329.
26. Liao, B., van den Berg, P. E., van Wesemael, P. J., & Arentze, T. A. (2020). Empirical analysis of walkability using data from the Netherlands. Transportation research part D: transport and environment, 85, 102390.
27. Ma, X., Chau, C. K., & Lai, J. H. K. (2021). Critical factors influencing the comfort evaluation for recreational walking in urban street environments. Cities, 116, 103286.
28. Roy, S., & Basu, D. (2020a). An evaluation of in-service infrastructural facilities of walk-access feeder paths to urban local bus stops. Transportation Research Procedia, 48, 3824-3831.
29. Roy, S., & Basu, D. (2020b). Selection of intervention areas for improving travel condition of walk-accessed bus users with a focus on their accessibility: An experience in Bhubaneswar. Transport Policy, 96, 29-39.
30. SCOPUS, (2022). https://www.scopus.com/term/analyzer.uri?sid=7df47e6c0771d3fd2a29fa600737343d&origin=resultslist&src=s&s=TITLE-ABS-KEY%28walkability%29&sort=plf-t&sdt=b&sot=b&sl=26&count=2711&analyzeResults=Analyze+results&txGid=f367510a8309a910566748906afa65bf. Erişim Tarihi: 05.05.2022.
31. Song, X., & Wu, Q. (2022). Study on smellscape perception and landscape application of fragrant plants. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 67, 127429.
32. Southworth, M., & Owens, P. M. (1993). The evolving metropolis: Studies of community, neighborhood, and street form at the urban edge. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(3), 271-287.
33. Southworth, M. (2005). Designing the Walkable City, Journal of Urban Planning and Development 131(4) 246-57.
34. Takahashi, P. Y., Baker, M. A., Cha, S., & Targonski, P. V. (2012). A cross-sectional survey of the relationship between walking, biking, and the built environment for adults aged over 70 years. Risk management and healthcare policy, 5, 35.
35. Ünal Çilek, M. (2020). Kamusal Alanlara Erişimde Optimum Yaya Güzergâhı Konforunu Belirlemeye Yönelik Kavramsal Bir Yaklaşım. Megaron, 15(3). Whybrow, P., Bramley, G., & Brown, C. (2021). ‘It's just one of those natural progressions': Stories of relocating to neighbourhoods of high and low walkability. Health & Place, 69, 102509.
36. World Health Organization. (2002). Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. World health report 2002.
37. Ye, Y., Wong, S. C., Li, Y. C., & Lau, Y. K. (2020). Risks to pedestrians in traffic systems with unfamiliar driving rules: a virtual reality approach. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 142, 105565.
38. Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Orr, B. J., Gimblett, R. H., Chalfoun, N. V., Marsh, S. E., Guertin, D. P., & Going, S. B. (2017). Designing healthy communities: Testing the walkability model. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 6(1), 63-73.