The Evaluation of Public Open Space Quality from the Perspective of Syrian Refugees Living in Bursa, Turkey

Abstract

Public open spaces are the areas where social relationships take place and cultures mix, where people interact with each other and with the local authorities. When these spaces are well-designed, relationships are built between users of these spaces; cooperation is improved, and benefits to the communities that accommodate newcomers, refugees, or migrants are increased. The scope of this research is to gain a better understanding of how refugees use, perceive, and experience public open spaces. The research sheds light on a case study of incoming Syrian refugees in Altıparmak and adjacent neighbourhoods in Bursa, Turkey. A mixed-method approach is used to gather information consisting of literature review, observation, and interviews. The questions of the interviews were designed based on the principles of the Project of Public Spaces (PPS) approach to measure the quality of a space, as well as to define the basic elements that make a space good, and make refugees feel welcomed and comfortable. The findings show that the public open spaces in the case study area have been successful in creating social networking, access, and links, uses, and activities, but have not met the criteria of image and comfort. The research highlights that public spaces are affected by the national and cultural identity of refugees. The findings also show that the best public open spaces for refugees give importance to create links between their homeland and host country.

Keywords

• public open space;
• quality of public space;
• Project for Public Spaces;
• placemaking;
• refugee.

Bursa-Türkiye’de Yaşayan Suriyeli Göçmenlerin Perspektifinden Kamusal Açık Alan Kalitesinin Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Kamusal açık alanlar, sosyal ilişkilerin oluştuğu ve kültürlerin karıştığı, insanların birbirleriyle ve yerel yönetimlerle etkileşimde bulunduğu alanlardır. Bu alanlar iyi tasarlandığında, kullanıcılar arasında iyi ilişkiler kurulur; işbirliği geliştirilir, yeni gelenleri, mültecileri veya göçmenleri barındıran topluluklara sağlanan faydalar artar. Çalışmanın amacı, mültecilerin kamusal açık alanların kullanımlarını ne şekilde algıladıklarını ve deneyimlediklerini araştırmaktır. Makalede Suriye’den Türkiye’ye, özellikle de Bursa, Altıparmak mahallesi ve çevresine göç eden mültecilere yönelik bir alan çalışması yapılmıştır. Yöntem olarak, literatür tarama, gözlem ve görüşmeler kullanılmıştır. Görüşmelerde mekan kalitesini ölçmek için Kamusal Mekanlar için Proje (PPS) yaklaşımının ilkelerini temel alan sorular sorulmuştur. Sonuç olarak, çalışma alanının sosyal ilişkiler, erişilebilirlik, kullanım ve aktivite konularında başarılı olduğu, ancak imaj ve konfor kriterlerini karşılamadığı ortaya çıkmıştır. Araştırma, kamusal açık alanların mültecilerin ulusal ve kültürel kimliklerinden de etkilendiğini göstermesi açısından önemlidir. Bulgular, en iyi kamusal açık alanların mültecilerin anavatanları ile ev sahibi ülke arasında bağ oluşturmaya önem verenler olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

• kamusal açık alan
• kamusal alan kalitesi
• kamusal mekanlar için proje
• yer yapma
• mülteci

References

1. Brand, A. L. (2018). The duality of space: The built world of Du Bois’ double-consciousness. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 36(1), 3–22.
2. Carmona, M., De Magalhaes, C., & Hammond, L. (2008). Public space: the management dimension. Routledge.
3. Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2003). Urban spaces-public places: The dimensions of urban design. Oxford: Architectural Press.
4. Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G., & Stone, A. M. (1995). Public space (2a Edição). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Cattell, V., Dines, N., Gesler, W., & Curtis, S. (2008). Mingling, observing, and lingering: Everyday public spaces and their implications for well-being and social relations. Health & Place, 14(3), 544–561.
6. Davies, R. (2012). Retail and Commercial Planning (RLE Retailing and Distribution). Routledge.
7. Dunnett, N., Swanwick, C., & Woolley, H. (2002). Improving urban parks, play areas and green spaces. Department for transport, local government and the regions London.
8. Gehl, J. (1987). Life between Buildings: Using Public Space,[trans by Jo Koch, Van Nostrand] Reinhold: New York.

9. Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people Island Press. Washington DC.
10. Gehl, J., & Gemz, L. (2004). Public spaces-public life. Kbh: Arkitektens Forlag.
11. Glassner, B., & Miller, J. (2004). The’inside’and the’outside’; finding realities in interviews. Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. London, Sage Publications.
12. Hass-Klau, C., Crampton, G., Dowland, C., & Nold, I. (1999). Streets as living space: Helping public places play their proper role. London: Landor.
13. Holland, C., Clark, A., Katz, J., & Peace, S. (2007). Social interactions in urban public places. Policy Press.
14. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities (London: Jonathon Cope).
15. Lanfer, A. G., & Taylor, M. (2005). Immigrant engagement in public open space: Strategies for the new Boston. Barr Foundation Online at Www. Barrfoundation. Org. Retrieved: March 25, 2019 from Http://Www. Communityarts. Net/Readingroom/Archivefiles/1999/Sharing_the _fut_2. Php.
16. Lloyd, K., & Auld, C. (2003). Leisure, public space and quality of life in the urban environment. Urban Policy and Research, 21(4), 339–356.
17. Madanipour, A. (2013). Whose public space?: International case studies in urban design and development. Routledge.
18. Maslow, A. H. (1981). Motivation and personality. Prabhat Prakashan.
19. Massey, D. S., Durand, J., & Malone, N. J. (2002). Beyond smoke and mirrors: Mexican immigration in an era of economic integration. Russell Sage Foundation.
20. Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 3(1), 93–116.
21. Painter, K., & Tilley, N. (1999). Surveillance of public space: CCTV, street lighting and crime prevention (Vol. 10). Criminal Justice Press Monsey, NY.
22. Öztürk, M. (2018). Policies of Municipalities Towards Syrian Refugees in Turkey: The Case of Bursa. Retrieved: March 24, 2021 from: https://www.academia.edu/43717444/Policies_of_Municipalities_Towards_Syrian_Refugees_in_Turkey_The_Case_of_Bursa
23. Project for Public Spaces and Metropolitan Planning Council(2016). Placemaking Chicago Comfort of Public Spaces. Retrieved December 15, 2018. From: http://www.placemakingchicago.com/about/qualities.asp
24. Project for Public Spaces. PPS (2016). Retrieved March 15, 2019, from http://www.pps.org/
25. Rishbeth, C., Blachnicka Ciacek, D., Bynon, R., & Stapf, T. (2017). refugeeswelcome in parks: A resource book. Sheffield, UK: The University of Sheffield.
26. Stathopoulos, T., Wu, H., & Zacharias, J. (2004). Outdoor human comfort in an urban climate. Building and Environment, 39(3), 297–305.
27. Thompson, C. W. (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(2), 59–72.
28. UN-Habitat, (2015) Global Public Space Toolkit: From Global Principles to Local Policies and Practice; United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Retrieved: March 15, 2019, https://unhabitat.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/10/Global%20Public%20Space%20Toolkit.pdf
29. UN High Commissioner for Refugees UNHCR, (2018). UNHCR Resettlement Handbook. Country Chapter United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Retrieved: March 24, 2019 from: http://www.unhcr.org/40ee6fc04.pdf.
30. Watson, S. (2013). City publics: The (dis) enchantments of urban encounters. Routledge.
31. Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation
32. Williams, D. R., & Carr, D. S. (2019). The sociocultural meanings of outdoor recreation places. In Culture, conflict, and communication in the wildland-urban interface (pp. 209–219). Routledge.
33. Yang, W., & Kang, J. (2005). Acoustic comfort evaluation in urban open public spaces. Applied Acoustics, 66(2), 211–229.