A QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION ON THE SPATIAL SITE SELECTION OF GREEN AREAS IN ANKARA YENIMAHALLE DISTRICT

Year 2023, , 1 - 14, 30.06.2023

Kübra Tercan , Dilara Yılmaz , Öznur Işınkaralar , Sevgi Öztürk

https://doi.org/10.46849/guiibd.1287469

Abstract

Open-green spaces have many benefits for cities and city dwellers and are known as an integral part of sustainability. The importance of open-green areas, which have many benefits in terms of environmental, social, economic, and human health, is among the important issues that have been constantly emphasized since ancient times. Urban open-green spaces are public spaces that can be used by everyone and where people from different walks of life can come together and spend time together. These areas also strengthen human-nature interaction thanks to their different functions and features. A systematic approach is required to reflect all these contributions to urban spaces. Many targets and standards have been developed in this regard both in the world and in Turkey. For the green space standards in Turkey, the 10 m²/person criteria specified in the Spatial Plans Construction Regulation established within the scope of the Zoning Law is taken into account. However, as a result of population growth, the need for green space also increases and it is not possible to provide the necessary parallel relationship between the two. The study, it is aimed to emphasize spatial inequality in terms of the amount of green space and population, by evaluating the distribution of green areas in the neighborhoods of Ankara Yenimahalle district with population data. The distribution of the green areas in the district and the neighborhood populations were compared and evaluated. In the study, in which the amount of green areas per capita was calculated, it was concluded that the green areas in the district were generally insufficient. It has been determined that the green areas per capita in only three neighborhoods are higher than the regulation standard.

Keywords

Open-green space, spatial inequality, spatial adequacy, urban planning, Ankara.

ANKARA YENİMAHALLE İLÇESİNDE YEŞİL ALANLARIN MEKÂNSAL YER SEÇİMİ ÜZERİNE KANTİTATİF BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Abstract

Açık-yeşil alanlar kentler ve kentte yaşayanlar için birçok açıdan faydası bulunmakta ve sürdürülebilirliğin ayrılmaz bir parçası olarak bilinmektedir. Çevresel, sosyal, ekonomik ve insan sağlığı açısından birçok faydası olan açık-yeşil alanların önemi Antik çağlardan günümüze kadar sürekli olarak vurgulanan önemli konular arasındadır. Kentsel açık-yeşil alanlar herkes tarafından kullanılabilen, farklı kesimden insanların bir araya gelerek birlikte vakit geçirebildikleri kamusal alanlardan birisidir. Bu alanlar aynı zamanda sahip oldukları farklı işlev ve özellikleri sayesinde insan-doğa etkileşimini de güçlendirmektedir. Tüm bu katkıların kentsel mekânlara yansıtılması için sistematik bir yaklaşımın olması gerekmektedir. Bu konuda hem Dünya’da hem de Türkiye’de birçok hedef ve standart geliştirilmiştir. Türkiye’de yeşil alan standartları için, İmar Kanunu kapsamında oluşturulan Mekânsal Planlar Yapım Yönetmeliği’nde belirtilen 10 m²/kişi ölçütü dikkate alınmaktadır. Fakat nüfus artışı sonucunda yeşil alan ihtiyacı da artmakta ve ikisi arasında olması gereken paralel ilişkinin sağlanması mümkün olmamaktadır. Çalışmada, Ankara Yenimahalle ilçesi mahallelerinde yeşil alan dağılımları, nüfus verileri ile değerlendirilerek, mekânsal eşitsizlik yeşil alan miktarı ve nüfus kapsamında vurgulamak amaçlanmaktadır. İlçede bulunan yeşil alanların dağılımları ve mahalle nüfusları ile karşılaştırılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Kişi başına düşen yeşil alan miktarlarının hesaplandığı çalışmada, genel olarak ilçede yeşil alanların yetersiz olduğu soncuna ulaşılmıştır. Sadece üç mahallede kişi başına düşen yeşil alanların yönetmelik standardından fazla olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

Açık-yeşil alan, mekânsal eşitsizlik, mekânsal yeterlilik, kentsel planlama, Ankara.

References

• Aksoy, Y. (2017). Aktif Yeşil Alanlar İçin Mekânsal Yeterlilik Analizi: İstanbul Örneği. Yer Seçimi Kuramı ve Uygulamaları, Yeni Anadolu Yayıncılık, Bölüm: 17, s. 236-247.
• Archana, G., & Kiran, S. (2019). Use of parks by older persons and perceived health benefits: A developing country context. Cities, 84, 134–142.
• Barlow, P., Lyons, S., & Nolan, A. (2021). How Perceived Adequacy of Open Public Space Is Related to Objective Green Space and Individuals’ Opinions of Area-Level Quality. Sustainability, 13(15), 8516.
• Bedimo-Rung, A.L., Mowen, A.J., Cohen, D.A. (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health. A conceptual model. Am. J. Prev. Med. 28, 159–168.
• Benek, S., & Şahap, A. (2017). Şanlıurfa Şehrinde Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS) ve Uzaktan Algılama (UA) Kullanılarak Yeşil Alanların Yeterliliğinin Belirlenmesi. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, (36), 304-314.
• Burat, S. (2017). Kentsel Açık Alanlar ve Planlama. Kent Planlama, Kavramlar, Konular, Güncel Tartışmalar, İmge Kitapevi, s. 231-253.
• Chan, E., & Lee, G. K. (2008). Critical factors for improving social sustainability of urban renewal projects. Social Indicators Research, 85(2), 243-256.
• Chen, Q., Hou, Y., & Wu, S. (2016). Assessment of accessibility to urban parks in Shaoxing city from the perspective of opportunity equity. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 36(03), 375-83.
• Chen, Y., Yue, W., & La Rosa, D. (2020). Which communities have better accessibility to green space? An investigation into environmental inequality using big data. Landscape and Urban Planning, 204, 103919.
• Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and urban planning, 68(1), 129-138.
• Clarke, J. F. (1972). Some effects of the urban structure on heat mortality. Environmental research, 5(1), 93-104.
• Dadashpoor, H., & Rostami, F. (2017). Measuring spatial proportionality between service availability, accessibility and mobility: Empirical evidence using spatial equity approach in Iran. Journal of Transport Geography, 65, 44–55.
• Dadvand, P., Bartoll, X., Basagaña, X., Dalmau-Bueno, A., Martinez, D., Ambros, A., Cirach, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Gascon, M., Borrell, C., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. (2016). Green spaces and general health: roles of mental health status, social support, and physical activity. Environ. Int. 91, 161–167.
• Dai, D. (2011). Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: Where to intervene?. Landscape and Urban Planning, 102(4), 234-244.
• Deniz, B., Kılıçaslan, Ç., & Koşan, F. (2019). Rekreasyonel Olanaklara Yönelik Beklentilerin Sağlıklı Kentler Yönüyle İrdelenmesi, Aydın Kenti Örneği. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 79-89.
• Dunnett, N., Swanwick, C., & Woolley, H. (2002). Improving urban parks, play areas and green spaces. London: Department for transport, local government and the regions.
• Ekkel, E. D., & de Vries, S. (2017). Nearby green space and human health: Evaluating accessibility metrics. Landscape and Urban Planning
• Emily, J. R., Richard, M. C., Sarah, B., & Henderson, M. B. (2019). Exposure to natural space, sense of community belonging, and adverse mental health outcomes across an urban region. Environmental Research, 171, 365–377.
• Ferguson, M., Roberts, H. E., McEachan, R. R., & Dallimer, M. (2018). Contrasting distributions of urban green infrastructure across social and ethno-racial groups. Landscape and Urban Planning, 175, 136-148.
• Gehl, J. (2011). “Three Types of Outdoor Activities,”“Life Between Buildings,” and “Outdoor Activities and the Quality of Outdoor Space”: from Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space (1987). In The city reader (pp. 586-608). Routledge.
• Gozalo, G. R., Morillas, J. M. B., & González, D. M. (2019). Perceptions and use of urban green spaces on the basis of size. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 46, 126470.
• Gül, A., Di̇nç, G., Akın, T., & Koçak, A. (2020). Kentsel Açık ve yeşil alanların mevcut yasal durumu ve uygulamadaki sorunlar. İDEALKENT, Kentleşme ve Ekonomi Özel Sayısı, Cilt Volume 11, Yıl Year 2020-3, 1281-1312.
• Jim, C. Y. (2004). Green-space preservation and allocation for sustainable greening of compact cities. Cities, 21(4), 311-320.
• Köşe, H., Kara, B. (2021). Söke (Aydın) Kenti Aktif Açık-Yeşil Alanlarının Yeterliliğinin İncelenmesi. Kent Akademisi, 14(2), 374-388.
• Lee, G., & Hong, I. (2013). Measuring spatial accessibility in the context of spatial disparity between demand and supply of urban park service. Landscape and Urban Planning, 119, 85–90.
• Loures, L., Santos, R., & Panagopoulos, T. (2007). Urban parks and sustainable city planning-The case of Portimão, Portugal. population, 15(10), 171-180.
• Mitchell, R., Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. Lancet 372, 1655–1660.
• Nesbitt, L., Meitner, M. J., Girling, C., Sheppard, S. R., & Lu, Y. (2019). Who has access to urban vegetation? A spatial analysis of distributional green equity in 10 US cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 181, 51-79.
• Nicholls, S. (2001). Measuring the accessibility and equity of public parks: A case study using GIS. Managing leisure, 6(4), 201-219.
• Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Khreis, H., Triguero-Mas, M., Gascon, M., Dadvand, P. (2017). Fifty shades of green: pathway to healthy urban living. Epidemiology 28, 63–71.
• Ong, B. L. (2003). Green plot ratio: an ecological measure for architecture and urban planning. Landscape and urban planning, 63(4), 197-211.
• Özdemir, Z., & Özkaynak, M. (2023). Kentsel Yeşil Alanları Sürdürülebilir Kentleşme Üzerinden Okumak: Amasya Kenti Örneği. Çevre Şehir ve İklim Dergisi, 2(3), 270-292.
• Öztürk, S. P., & Şenol, F. (2022). Do spatial development plans provide spatial equity in access to public parks: A case with a residential area in Karabağlar and Buca (İzmir). PLANLAMA, 32(1), 132-142.
• Öztürk, S., Özdemir, Z. (2013). Kentsel açık ve yeşil alanların yaşam kalitesine etkisi Kastamonu Örneği. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty, 13(1), 109-116.
• Peker, E., & Orhan, E. (2021). Mekânsal Planlamada Deprem Riski ve İklim Krizini Birlikte Ele Almak. PLANLAMA, 31(2), 288-301.
• Peters, K., Elands, B., Buijs, A. (2010). Social interactions in urban parks: stimulating social cohesion? Urban For. Urban Green. 9, 93–100.
• Phillips, A., Canters, F., & Khan, A. Z. (2022). Analyzing spatial inequalities in use and experience of urban green spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 74, 127674.
• Plantinga, A. J., & Wu, J. (2003). Co-benefits from carbon sequestration in forests: evaluating reductions in agricultural externalities from an afforestation policy in Wisconsin. Land Economics, 79(1), 74-85.
• Satılmış, E. Ş., Büyükcivelek, İ. A., & Varol, Ç. (2021). Kent Sağlığı ve Covid-19 Kapsamında Sağlık Hizmetleri Mekânsal Yer Seçiminin Değerlendirilmesi: Ankara Çankaya İlçesi Örneği. İdealkent, 12(32), 268-297.
• Savard, J. P. L., Clergeau, P., & Mennechez, G. (2000). Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape and urban planning, 48(3-4), 131-142.
• Ståhle, A. (2010). More green space ın a denser city: critical relations between user experience and urban form. Urban Design International, 15(1), 47-67.
• Swyngedouw, E., & Heynen, N. C. (2003). Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of scale. Antipode
• Şenik, B., & Uzun, O. (2021). Açık Yeşil Alan Sistemi Planlanma ve Tasarım Süreçlerinde Millet Bahçelerinin Rolü. PLANLAMA, 31(3), 378-392.
• Şimşek, Y., & Güngör, Ş. Kentsel Yeşil Alanlar İçin Mekânsal Yeterlilik ve Ulaşabilirlik Analizi: Gaziantep/Şahinbey Örneği. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(3), 691-709.
• Taleai, M., Sliuzas, R., & Flacke, J. (2014). An integrated framework to evaluate the equity of urban public facilities using spatial multi-criteria analysis. Cities, 40, 56–69.
• Tang, Z., & Gu, S. (2015). An evaluation of social performance in the distribution of urban parks in the central city of Shanghai: From spatial equity to social equity. Urban Plan Forum, 2, 48–56.
• Thompson, C. W. (2011). Linking landscape and health: The recurring theme. Landscape and urban planning, 99(3-4), 187-195.
• Tsou, K., Hung, Y., & Chang, Y. (2005). An accessibility-based integrated measure of relative spatial equity in urban public facilities. Cities, 22, 424–435.
• Türker, H. B., Gül, A. (2022). Kentsel Açık ve Yeşil Alanlarının Niceliksel Analizi ve İrdelenmesi: Uşak Kent Merkezi Örneği. Kent Akademisi, 15(4), 2070-2091.
• Vujcic, M., Tomicevic-Dubljevic, J., Zivojinovic, I., Toskovic, O. (2018). Connection between urban green areas and visitors’ physical and mental well-being. Urban For. Urban Green.
• Watson, V. (2009). ‘The planned city sweeps the poor away…’: Urban planning and 21st century urbanisation. Progress in planning, 72(3), 151-193.
• Wen, M., Zhang, X., Harris, C. D., Holt, J. B., & Croft, J. B. (2013). Spatial disparities in the distribution of parks and green spaces in the USA. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45(suppl_1), S18-S27.
• Williams, A. (2002). The Optimal Provision of Public Goods in a System of Local Government. Journal of Political Economy.
• Wooley, H. (2003). Urban Open Spaces. London, New York: Spon Press.
• Wu, J., & Shen, N. (2017). Walk score method-based evaluation of social service function of urban park green lands in Futian district, Shenzhen, China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 37, 7483–7492.
• Wu, J., Si, M., & Li, W. (2016). Spatial equity analysis of urban green space from the perspective of balance between supply and demand: A case study of futian district, shenzhen, China. Chinese. Journal of Applied Ecology, 27, 2831–2838.
• Wüstemann, H., Kalisch, D., & Kolbe, J. (2017). Access to urban green space and environmental inequalities in Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 164, 124-131.
• Xu, J., Fang, S., & Liu, C. (2017). Spatial equity of public green in Wuhan central districts based on gravity two-step floating catchment area method. Resources Science, 39, 430–440.
• Yenice, M. S. (2012). Kentsel yeşil alanlar için mekânsal yeterlilik ve erişebilirlik analizi; Burdur örneği, Türkiye. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 13(1), 41-47.
• Yüksek, İ., Esen, Y. (2023). İzmir İli, Çiğli İlçesinin Mevcut ve İmar Uygulama Planındaki Açık Yeşil Alan Yeterliliğinin İrdelenmesi. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 11(1), 264-275.
• Zheng, Z., Shen, W., Li, Y., Qin, Y., & Wang, L. (2020). Spatial equity of park green space using KD2SFCA and web map API: A case study of zhengzhou, China. Applied Geography, 123, 102310.
• Zheng, Z., Zhang, L., Qin, Y., Wang, X., Zhang, J., & Yu, Y. (2019). Accessibility of parks and scenic spots in Kaifeng City based on multi-mode traffic network. Are. Res. Develop., 38, 60–67.