REFLECTIONS OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN TURKEY URBAN PARKS AND GREEN AREAS: İSTANBUL, TEKİRDAĞ, KIRKLARELİ EXAMPLES

Öz

In our country, a large number of researches were done on the sufficiency of urban open-green areas, their distribution within the city, their facilities, and user demands etc., thus necessary precautions were determined in line with the demand. However, there is not enough research presenting; how "urban green area" concept is perceived by the citizens, what it means, and accordingly, what the people's attitudes are and how they benefit. The aim of this study is to determine the citizens’ perception of urban green areas and their attitudes and recreational tendencies in terms of usage of these parks, through İstanbul, Tekirdag, and Kırklareli examples in Turkey. In İstanbul, a metropolis which reflects the mosaic of Turkey, districts with different demographic structures are also included in the research. In this context, one on one surveys are conducted with the citizens living in these provinces and the results are evaluated comparatively. The research findings contribute the determination of the social culture on "green areas" in Turkey, based on these three provinces different from each other.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Culture
• Landscape design
• Turkey
• Urban parks

TÜRKİYE’DEKİ KENT PARKLARI VE YEŞİL ALANLARA KÜLTÜREL FARKLILIKLARIN YANSIMALARI: İSTANBUL, TEKİRDAĞ, KIRKLARELİ ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Ülkemizde, kentsel açık ve yeşil alanların yeterliliği, kent içindeki dağılımları, ihtiva ettiği donatı elemanları, kullanıcı talepleri vb. konularında çok sayıda araştırma yapılmış, kullanıcı talepleri doğrultusunda alınması gereken önlemler belirlenmiştir. Ancak kentsel yeşil alan kavramının kentlilerce nasıl algılandığını, ne anlam ifade ettiğini ve buna bağlı olarak halkın tutumunu ve kullanım biçimini ortaya koyan yeterli sayıda araştırma yapılmamıştır. Bu çalışmada, İstanbul, Tekirdağ ve Kırklareli örneklerinde; kentlerde yaşayan halkın kentsel yeşil alan algısı ve bu parkların kullanımına yönelik tutumunu ve rekreasyonel eğilimlerini belirlemek amaçlanmıştır. Türkiye’nin mozaik yapısını yansıtan İstanbul metropolünde, demografik yapısı farklı ilçeler de araştırmaya dahil edilmiştir. Bu kapsamda, bu illerde yaşayan kent halkı ile birebir anket çalışması yapılmış, sonuçlar karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırma bulguları, üç farklı yapıdaki kent örneğinden yola çıkılarak, toplumsal yeşil alan kültürümüzün belirlenmesine de katkı sağlamaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kültür
• Peyzaj tasarım
• Türkiye
• Kent parklar

Kaynakça

1. Aksoy, Y. & Akpınar, A. 2011. Yeşil Alan Kullanımı ve Yeşil Alan Gereksinimi Üzerine Bir Araştırma İstanbul İli Fatih İlçesi Örneği, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Yıl: 10, Sayı: 20(81-96).
2. Antrop, M. 2004. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Land- scape and Urban Planning 67, 9–26.
3. Barış, E. M., Yazgan, E. M. & Şahin, Ş. 2004. Açık Alanların Ankara Kentinde Kent İklimi ve Hava Kalitesi Üzerine Etkileri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projesi Kesin Raporu, s, Ankara.
4. Bennett, G. & Mulongoy, K.J. 2006. Review of experience with ecological networks, corridors and buffer zones. In: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diver- sity (CBD), Montreal. Technical Series No. 23.a
5. Bilgili, C. 2009. Ankara Kenti Yeşil Alanlarının Kent Ekosistemine Olan Etkilerinin Bazı Ekolojik Göstergeler Çerçevesinde Değerlendirilmesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma, Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Doktora Tezi, Ankara.
6. Bishop, I.D., Ye, W.S. & Karadaglis, C. 2001. Experiential approach to perception response in virtual worlds. Landsc. Plan. 54, 115– 123.
7. Bixler, R.D. & Floyd, M.F. 1997. Nature is scary, disgusting and uncomfortable. Environ. Behav. 29, 443–467.
8. Bolund, P. & Hunhammar, S. 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economy; 29: 293–301.

9. Breuste, J., Haase, D. & Elmqvist, T. 2013. Urban landscapes and ecosystem services. In: Wratten S, Sandhu H, Cullen R, Costanza R, editors. Ecosystem Services in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes. Wiley; 2013. p. 83–104.
10. Byomkesh, T., Nakagoshi, N .& Dewan, A. M. 2012. Urbanization and green space dynamics in Greater Dhaka, Bangladesh. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 8, 45–58.
11. Calfapietra, C., Fares, S. & Loreto, F. 2009. Volatile organic compounds from Italian vegetation and their interaction with ozone. Environmental Pollution 157, 1478–1486.
12. Chiesura, A. 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city, Landscape and Urban Planning; 68:129-138.
13. Coley, R.L., Sullivan, W. C., & Kuo, F. E. 1997. Where does community grow?: The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environ Behav; 29(4):468–94. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/001391659702900402.
14. Dean, J., Van Dooren, K., & Weinstein, P. 2011. Does biodiversity improve mental health in urban settings? Medical Hypotheses, 76(6), 877–880.
15. DelSazSalazar & Menéndez. 2007. Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: Does proximity matter? Land use policy 24: 296-305.
16. Escobedo, F. J., & Nowak, D. J 2009. Spatial heterogeneity and air pollution removal by an urban forest. Landsc Urban Plan; 90 (3–4):102–108.
17. Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman,M., Collins,C. & Douglas,K.N.K. 2005. Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, 169–176.
18. Grahn, P. 1985. Man’s Needs for Urban Parks, Greenery and Recreation. Institute for Landscape Planning, Swedish Agricultural University, Alnarp.
19. Gül, A. & Küçük, V. 2001. Kentsel Açık - Yeşil Alanlar ve Isparta Kenti Örneğinde İrdelenmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 2; 27-48, Isparta.
20. Hartig, T., Evans, G.W., Jamner,L.D., Davis,D.S.,& Garling,T. 2003. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 109–123.
21. Hendrey, G.H., Ellsworth, D.S., Lewin,K.F., Nagy, J. 1999. Afree-airenrichmentsys- tem forexposingtallforestvegetationtoelevatedatmosphericCO2. Global Change Biology: 5, 293–309.
22. Jackson, L.E. 2003. The relationship of urban design to human health and condition. Landscape and Urban Planning 64, 191–200.
23. Jim, C. Y., & Chen, W. Y. 2008. Assessing the ecosystemservice of air pollutant removal by urban trees in Guangzhou (China). J Environ Manag ;88 (4):665–676.
24. Jim, C. Y., & Chen,W.Y. 2006. Impacts of urban environmental elements on residential housing prices in Guangzhou (China). Landsc Urban Plan; 78(4) :422–34. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.003.
25. Lafortezza, R., Carrusi, G., Sanesi, G., & Davies., C. 2009. Benefits and well-being perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress. Urban For Urban Green 8(2): 97–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.02.003.
26. Lafortezza, R., Davies, C., Sanesi, G. & Konijnendijk, C.C. 2013. Green Infrastructure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions. Forest 6, 100–106.
27. Li, F., Wang, R., Paulussen, J. & Liu, X., 2005. Comprehensive concept planning of urban greening based on ecological principles: a case study in Beijing, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 72, 325–336.
28. Maas, J., Verheij, R. a, Groenewegen, P.P, de Vries, S. & Spreeuwenberg P. 2006. Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? J Epidemiol Community Health ;60 (7): 587–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.043125.
29. Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P., & St Leger, L. 2006. Healthy nature healthy people: ‘Contact with nature’ as an upstream health pro-motion intervention for populations. Health Promotion International, 21(1),45–54.
30. Maller, C., Townsend,M., StLeger,L., Henderson-Wilson,C., Pryor,A., Prosser,L. 2008. Healthy parks, healthy people: The health benefits of contact with nature in a park context. Burwood, Melbourne: Deakin University and Parks Victoria.
31. Melbourne Parks. A Survey of the Use of Selected Sites. 1983. Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, Ministry of Planning and Environment, Melbourne. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,MEA,2005. Ecosystems andHumanWell-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
32. Miran, B. (2002). Temel İstatistik, Ege Üniversitesi Matbaası, İzmir..
33. More, T.A., Stevens, T. & Allen, P.G. 1988. Valuation of urban parks, Landscape and Urban Planning, 15:139-152.
34. Nowak, D.J. & Dwyer, J.F. 2007. Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. In: Kuser, J.E. (Ed.), Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast. 2nd ed. Springer, New York, USA, pp. 25–46.
35. Özdemir, A. 2009. Katılımcı Kent Kimliğinin Oluşumunda Kamusal Yeşil Alanların Rolü: Ankara Kent Parkları Örneği, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, A (1): 144-153.
36. Özgüner, H. 2011. Cultural Differences in Attitudes Towards Urban Parks and Green Spaces, Landscape Research, Vol. 36, No. 5, 599–620, Oct. 2011.
37. Payne, L.L., Mowen, A.J. & Smith, E.O. 2002. An Examination of Park Preferences and Behaviors among Urban Residents: The Role of Residential Location, Race, and Age. Leisure Sciences, 24: 181-198.
38. Polat, A.T., Güngör, S. & Adıyaman, S. 2012. Konya Kenti Yakın Çevresindeki Kentsel Rekreasyon Alanlarının Görsel Kalitesi İle Kullanıcıların Demografik Özellikleri Arasındaki İlişkiler, KSÜ Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi Özel Sayı, Kahramanmaraş.
39. Pretty, J. 2004. How nature contributes to mental and physical health. Spirituality and Health International 5, 68–78.
40. Ren Y, Wei X, Wei XH, Pan JZ, Xie PP., & Song XD. 2011. Relationship between vegetation carbon storage and urbanization: a case study of Xiamen, China. For Ecol Manage;261:1214–23.
41. Roy, S., Byrne, J. & Pickering, C. 2012. A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 11, 351–363.
42. Serret, H., Raymond, R., Foltete, J.C., Clergeau, P., Simon, L. & Machon, N. 2014). Potential contributions of green spaces at business sites to the ecological network in an urban agglomeration: The case of the Ile-de-France region, France, Landscape and Urban Planning, 131 (27-35).
43. Shuib, K.B., Hashim, H. &Nasir, N, A, M. 2015. Community Participation Strategies in Planning for Urban Parks, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 168: 311 – 320.
44. Sijtsma, F. J., de Vries, S., van Hinsberg, A., & Diederiks, J. 2012. Does ‘grey’ urban living lead to more ‘green’ holiday nights? A Netherlands case study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105, 250–257.
45. Smith T, Nelischer, M, & Perkins, N. 1997. Quality of an urban community: a framework for understanding the relationship between quality and physical form. Landsc Urban Plan:39(2–3):229–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00055-8.
46. Spronken-Smith, R.A, & Oke,T. R. 1998. The thermal regime of urban parks in two cities with different summer climates. Int J Remote Sens;19:2085–107.
47. Sugiyama, T. & Thompson,C.2008. Associations between characteristics of neighbourhood open space and older people’s walking. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 7, 41–51.
48. Tajima, K. 2003. New estimates of the demand for urban green space: implications for valuing the environmental benefits of Boston's Big Dig project. J Urban Aff;25(5): 641–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2003.00006.x.
49. Takano, T., Fu, J., Nakamura, K., Uji, K., Fukuda, Y., & Nakajima, H. 2002. Age-adjusted mortality and its association to variations in urban conditions in Shanghai. Health Policy, 61, 239–253.
50. Talay, İ., Kaya., F. & Belkayalı, N. 2010. Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapının Rekreasyonel Eğilim ve Talepler Üzerine Etkisi: Bartın Kenti Örneği, Coğrafi bilimler Dergisi 8(2): 147-156.
51. The World Bank, 2011. Climate change,disaster risk, and the urban poor: Cities build- ing resilience for a changing world. Washington, USA:The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development /The World Bank.
52. Townsend, M.,& Weerasuriya,R. 2010. Beyond blue to green:The benefits of contact with nature for mental health and well-being. Melbourne,Australia:BeyondBlue Limited.
53. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Ka´zmierczak, A. & Niemela, J.,et al. 2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3),167–178.
54. United Nations 2012. World urbanization prospects: The 2011 revision: United Nations.
55. Van Renterghem, T. & Botteldooren, D. 2002. Effect of a row of trees behind noise barriers in wind. Acta Acustica united with Acustica 88, 869–878.
56. Velande, M.D., Fry, G. & Tveit, M., 2007. Health effects of viewing landscapes. Land- scape type in environmental psychology. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 6, 199–212.
57. Ward Thompson, C. 2011. Linking landscape and health: the recurring theme. Land- scape and Urban Planning 99, 187–195.
58. Weber, D. and Anderson, D. 2010. Contact with nature: Recreation experience preferences in Australian parks. Annals of Leisure Research, 13, 46–73.
59. Wendel-Vos, G.C.W., Schuit,A.J., DeNeit,R., Boshuizen,H.C.,Saris,W.H.M., & Kromhout,D. 2004. Factors of the physical environment associated with walking and bicycling. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36, 725–730.
60. Wilhelm-Stanis, S.A.,Schneider,I.E.,& Pereira,M.A. 2010. Parks and health: Differences in constraints and negotiation strategies for park-based leisure time physical activity by stage of change. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 7, 273–284.
61. Yu, K. 1995. Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts, Landscape and Urban Planning, 32(107-126).
62. Zhou, X.L. & Wang, Y. C. 2011. Spatial-temporal dynamics of urban green space in response to rapid urbanization and greening policies. Landsc Urban Plan; 100:268–77.