The Relationship Between Spatial Characteristics of Urban Parks and Psychological Well-being: A Case Study of Ankara Seğmenler Park

Abstract

Life styles, which have been constantly changing in recent years, have many positive and negative effects on individuals. This effect has been the subject of scientific and applied studies by different professional disciplines. In this study, the relationship between the psychological well-being of individuals who get away from their daily routine and spend time in a city park and the spatial characteristics of that park is examined. In the first phase of the study; "Perceived sensory dimensions" in Ankara Seğmenler Park have been classified into 5 different spaces with the survey study applied to experts according to venue types. In the study carried out in two stages, the users were given different questionnaires examining psychological well-being, duration and frequency of park use, and the patterns of park use within the scope of physical, social and mental activities. In the study conducted with a total of 136 participants from each region, statistical analyzes were carried out using the SPSS 20.0 V statistical package program. The emotional states of the participants before, during and after using the park were measured, and the effects of different spaces on the participants were examined. As a result of the study, statistically significant differences were found in the effects of regions with different spatial characteristics on individuals' mood after use. It has been determined that the opportunities provided by 5 different regions of Ankara Seğmenler Park (in terms of physical, social and mental activities) affect the space preferences of individuals and each region causes different levels of emotion changes in similar activities.

Keywords

• Urban parks
• Well-being
• Seğmenler Park

References

1. Ayan B. 2012. Doktora Semineri, Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye, ss: 190.
2. Ayan B. 2017. Öznel iyi olma hali üzerine kent parklarının etkilerinin irdelenmesi: Ankara kenti örneği. Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye, ss: 232.
3. Bradburn NM. 1969. The structure of psychological well-being. Aldine Cambridge University Press, Chicago, US.
4. Dağlı A, Baysal N. 2016. Yaşam doyum ölçeğinin türkçeye uyarlanması: Geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması. E-J Soc Sci 15(59): 1250-1262.
5. Deci EL, Ryan RM. 1991. A motivational approach to the self: Integration in personality. University of Nebraska Press, Nebraska, US, pp: 237-288.
6. Diener E, Diener M, Diener C. 2009a. Factors predicting subjective well-being of nations. Soc Indic Res Ser, 38: 43-70.
7. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. 1985. The satisfaction with life scale. J Personal Asses, 49: 71-75
8. Diener E, Seligman MEP. 2009. Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Springer, Dordrecht, the Nerherland, pp: 201- 266.

9. Diener E, Suh E, Oishi S. 1997. Recent findings on subjective well-being. Indian J Clin Psychol, 24: 25-41.
10. Diener E, Wirtz D, Tov W. 2009b. New measures of well-being: Flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Soc Indic Res, 39: 247-266.
11. Diener E. 1984. Subjective well being. Psychol Bull, 95: 542-575.
12. Douglas O, Lennon M, Scott M. 2017. Green space benefits for health and well-being: A life-course approach for urban planning, design and management. Cities, 66: 53-62.
13. Grahn P, Stigsdotter UA. 2011. Landscape planning and stres. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden.
14. İnceoğlu M, Aytuğ A. 2009. Kentsel mekanda kalite kavramı. Megaron, 4(3): 131-146.
15. Kangal A. 2013. Mutluluk üzerine kavramsal bir değerlendirme ve Türk hanehalkı için bazı sonuçları. E Sos Bil Derg, 12(44): 214-233.
16. Kaplan R, Kaplan S. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp: 360.
17. Morris N. 2003. Literature review: Health, wellbeing and open space, OPENspace research center, Edinburgh College of Art and Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.
18. Özgüner H. 2004. Doğal peyzajın insanların psikolojik ve fiziksel sağlığı üzerine etkileri, Süleyman Demirel Üniv Orman Fak Derg Seri A, 2: 97-107.
19. Rohde CLE, Kendle AD. 1994. Report to English nature. Human well-being, nature landscape and wildlife in urban areas: a review. Department of Horticulture and Landscape and Research Institute for the Care of the Elderly, University of Reading, Bath, UK.
20. Ryan RM, Deci EL. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Amer Psychol, 55: 68-78.
21. Ryff CD, Keyes CLM. 1995. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J Person Soc Psychol, 69: 719-727.
22. Ryff CD, Magee WJ, Kling KC, Wing EH. 1999. Forging macro-micro linkages in the study of psychological well-being. Springer, New York, US, pp: 247-278.
23. Sezer F. 2013. Psikolojik İyi olma durumu üzerine etkili faktörler. J New World Sci Acad, 8(4): 489-504.
24. Stigsdotter UK, Grahn P, Corazon SS, Refshauge AD. 2017. Forest design for mental health promotion — Using perceived sensory dimensions to elicit restorative responses. Landscape Urban Plan, 160: 1-15.
25. Telef BB. 2013. Psikolojik iyi oluş ölçeği: Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe Üniv Eğit Fak Derg 28(3): 374-384.
26. Ulrich RS. 1993. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In: Kellert SR, Wilson EO, editors. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press, Washington, US.