Kastamonu Cevizli Parkın Değişiminin Terapik Açısından İncelenmesi

Year 2023, Volume: 19 Issue: 1, 21 - 42, 25.06.2023

Çiğdem Sakıcı

https://doi.org/10.58816/duzceod.1280603

Abstract

Artan nüfus ile beraber insanların doğayla etkileşimde bulunma ihtiyaçları giderek atmaktadır. Kent parkları bu ihtiyaçları gidermek için en çok kullanılan rekreasyon alanlarıdır. Bu alanların kullanıcıların ihtiyacına göre düzenlenmesi, kullanılabilirliği ve kullanıcıya terapik fayda sağlaması ve çok önemlidir. Bu çalışma yardımıyla Kastamonu merkezde bulunan ve sıklıkla kullanılan Cevizli Park’ın eski ve yeni tasarımlarının kullanım ve terapi sağlayıcı etkileri açıdan karşılaştırılması yapılmıştır. Parkın geçmiş ve günümüzde hangi özelliklere sahip olduğu, ne oranda kullanıcılara terapi sağladığı, ne kadar sık kullanıldığı, sık kullanılmama sebepleri, bu alanda hangi etkinliklerin gerçekleştirildiği ve alanların etkinliklere uygunluğu, bu etkinlikleri gerçekleştirdikten sonra ruh hallerinde meydana gelen değişimler ve pozitif ruh haline sahip olmalarına yardımcı olan alan özellikleri belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Parkın terapik açıdan değerlendirilmesi hem uzman hem de kullanıcı grubu tarafından ayrı ayrı yapılmış ve iki grubun da değerlendirme sonuçlarının birbirine benzerlik gösterdiği çalışma sonuçları ile ortaya konulmuştur. Bu değerlendirme sonucunda Cevizli parkın yeni tasarımının eskiye oranla terapi sağlayıcı etki ve kullanım açısından daha başarılı olduğu ancak iki tasarımın da yetersiz olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır.

Keywords

Terapik etki, İyileştirici bahçe, Terapi sağlayıcı peyzaj, Açık yeşil alan

Thanks

Anket uygulaması sırasında katkılarından dolayı Kastamonu Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalında yüksek lisans yapan Dilek Kardeş'e teşekkür ediyorum

Investigation of the Design Change of Kastamonu Cevizli Park in terms of Therapeutic Effect

Abstract

People's need to connect with nature is increasing day by day with the increasing population. Urban parks are the most commonly used recreational areas to satisfy these needs. It is very important that these areas are designed according to the therapeutic benefit to the users, usability and users' needs. With the help of this study, the old and the new design of Cevizli Park, which is located in the center of Kastamonu and is frequently used, were compared in terms of usege and therapeutic effect. What are the characteristic properties of the park in the past and in the present, to what extent it provides therapy to the users, how often it is used, for what reasons it is not used so often, what activities take place in this area and how suitable the areas are for the activities, how the mood of the users changes after performing these activities and how they contribute to a positive mood were investigated with the help of this study. The therapeutic evaluation of the park was done separately by both the expert and the user group, and the results of the study showed that the evaluation results of the two groups were similar to each other. As a result of this evaluation, it was found that the new design of Cevizli Park is more successful than the old design in terms of therapeutic effect and usege, but both designs are insufficient.

Keywords

Therapeutic effect, Healing garden, Therapeutic landscape, Open green areas

References

• Acar, C., & Sakıcı, Ç. (2008). Assessing landscape perception of urban rocky habitats, Building and Environment, 43(6), 1153-70.
• Anonim, (2004). Healing by design: healing gardens and therapeutic landscapes, Implications, 2(10), 1-4.
• Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Atanur, G., ve Ersöz, N.D. (2020). Kavramsal gelişim süreçleri ve tasarım bileşenleri bağlamında kent parkları. Ağaç ve Orman, 1(1), 66-71.
• Bowers, D.A. (2003). Incorporating restorative experiential qualities and key landscape attributes to enhance the restorative experience in healing gardens within health care settings, Master Theses,Washington State University, 108.
• Brawley, E.C. (1992). Alzheimer’s disease: designing the physical environment, American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Demants, 7(1), 3-8.
• Elings, M. (2006). People-plant interaction: the physiological, psychological and sociological effects of plants on people. Farming for health, 43-55.
• Ghose, S. (1999). The healing dimensions of hospital gardens: three case studies assessing the use, Master Thesis, The University of Texas, 95
• Gür, Ş.Ö. (1996). Mekan örgütlenmesi, Trabzon: Gür Yayıncılık, 280.
• Hartig, T., Book, A., Garvill, J., Olsson T., & Garling, T. (1995). Environmental influences on psychological restoration, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 37(4), 378-393.
• Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G.W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experiences, Environment and Behavior, 23(1), 3-26.
• Herzog, T.R., Black, A.M., Fountaine, K.A., & Knotts, D.J. (1997). Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(2), 165-70.
• Hillman, J. (1994). The role of urban parks, the future of our urban parks, London: Finding of The Symposium Church House Conference Centre, 6-7.
• Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1996). The experience of nature: a psychological perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R.L. (1998). With people in mind: design and management of everyday nature, Washington, D. C.: Island Press.
• LaFargue, L. (2004). Nature is to nurture: a post occupancy evaluation of the St. Michael Health Care Center, Texarkana, Master Thesis, Louisiana State University, School of Landscape Architecture, Texas.
• Lewis, C.A. (1990). Gardening as healing process. In: R. Hester, and M. Francis, (Eds.), The Meanings of Gardens: Idea, Place, and Action, 244-51, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Lewis, C.A. (1994). The evolutionary ımportance of people-plant relationships. In: Flagler, J., and Poincelot, R.P. (Eds.) People-Plant Relationships: Setting Research Priorities. Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press.
• Marcus, C.C., & Barnes, M. (1995). Gardens in healthcare facilities: uses, therapeutic benefits and design recommendations. The Center for Health Design, Martinez, United States of America: Eusey Press, 70.
• Marcus, C.C., & Barnes, M. (1999). Healing garden: therapeutic benefits and desing recommendations, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 624.
• Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2007). Evidence based public health policy and practice, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61(8), 681-683.
• Paine, R., & Francis, C. (1990). Hospital outdoor spaces, people places: design guidelines for urban open spaces, Eds.: Marcus, C.C., Francis, C., 263-290.
• Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Sellens, M., & Griffin, M. (2005). The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise, International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 15(5), 319-337.
• Sakıcı, Ç. (2009). Open space therapy unit in psychiatric hospitals: a case study of Ataköy Psychiatric Hospital, PhD Thesis, The University of Karadeniz Technical, Department of Landscape Architecture, Trabzon, Turkey.
• Sakıcı, Ç. (2014). The assessment of the relationship between various waterscapes and outdoor activities: Edirne, Turkey. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 186, 3725-3741.
• Sakıcı, Ç., Çelik, S., ve Kapucu, Ö. (2013). Evaluation of landscape designs of hospital gardens in Kastamonu, Faculty of Forestry Journal Süleyman Demirel University, 14(1), 64-73.
• Sakıcı, Ç., ve Var, M. (2023). Personal space preferences depending on behaviour at a psychiatric hospital garden. Kent Akademisi, 16(1), 18-34.
• Sherman, S.A., Varni, J.W., Ulrich, R.S., & Malcarne, V.L. (2005). Post- occupancy evaluation of healing gardens in a pediatric cancer center, Landscape and Urban Planning, 73(2-3), 167-183.
• Smardon, R.C. (1990). Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: Review of the role of vegetation, Landscape and Urban Planning, 15(1-2), 85-106.
• Stigsdotter, U.A. (2005). Landscape architecture and health, evidence- based health- promoting design and planning, PhD Thesis, Faculty of Landscape Planning, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
• Tyson, M.M. (1998). The healing landscape: therapeutic outdoor environments, New York: McGraw-Hill, 224.
• Ulrich, R.S. (1984). Views through a window may ınfluence recovery from Surgery, Science, 224, 420–421.
• Ulrich, R.S. (1991). Effects of health facility interior design on wellness: theory and scientific research, Journal of Healthcare Design, 3, 97–109.
• Ulrich, R.S. (1999). Effects of gardens on health outcomes: theory and research, In: Cooper Marcus C, Marni B, editors. Healing Gardens: Therapeutic Benefits and Design Recommendations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 27 – 86.
• Ulrich, R.S. (2001). Effects of healthcare environmental design on medical outcomes, The therapeutic benefits of design, Ed.: Dilani, A., Design & Health, 49–59.
• Varni, J.W., & Katz, E.R. (1997). Stress, social support, and negative affectivity in children with newly diagnosed cancer: A prospective transactional analysis, Psycho-Oncology, 6(4), 267–278.
• Whitehouse, S., Varni, J.W., Seid, M., Marcus, C.C., Ensberg, M.J., Jacobs, J.R., & Mehlenbeck, R.S. (2001). Evaluating a children’s hospital garden environment: utilization and consumer satisfaction, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 301-314.
• Zimring, C. (2002). Post occupancy evaluations: issue and ımplementation, handbook of environmental psychology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 306-319.