Çocuk Koruma Merkezlerinin Mekânsal Tasarım Düzeninin Kullanıcı Algısı İle Değerlendirilmesi: Türk Kızılay Bağcılar Çocuk Koruma Merkezi Örneği

Year 2025, Volume: 10 Issue: 2, 845 - 862, 27.12.2025

Büşra Gizem Yılmaz , Hatice Ayataç

https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.1739693

Abstract

Bu çalışma, dezavantajlı çocukların bulundukları mekânları nasıl algıladıklarını ve bu mekânlarla nasıl duygusal ilişkiler kurduklarını inceleyerek çocuk odaklı mimari tasarıma katkı sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, Türk Kızılayı Avrupa Yakası Çocuk Koruma Merkezi’nde yürütülmüş olup, 7–11 ve 11–15 yaş gruplarındaki çocuklarla hikâye anlatımı, model yapımı ve haritalama gibi katılımcı nitel yöntemler kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, yoksunluk ve mekânsal istikrarsızlık deneyimlerinin, çocukların güvenlik, aidiyet ve kontrol kavramlarına yönelik duyarlılıklarını artırdığını göstermektedir. Küçük yaş grubunda oyun, doğa ve somut öğeler ön plana çıkarken; büyük yaş grubunda kimlik, sosyal ilişkiler ve özerklik temaları belirginleşmiştir. Haritalama verileri, oyun ve etkinlik alanlarının güvenli ve kapsayıcı mekânlar olarak algılandığını ortaya koymuştur. Çalışma, dezavantajlı çocukların psikolojik iyilik hâlini destekleyen esnek, iyileştirici ve kapsayıcı mekân düzenlemelerinin önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

Algı , çocuk-mekan ilişkisi , çocuk merkezleri , mekan , öyküleme yöntemi

The Evaluation of the Spatial Design Order of Child Protection Centers with User Perception: The Case of Turkish Red Crescent Bağcılar Child Protection Center

Abstract

This study aims to contribute to child-centered architectural design by examining how disadvantaged children perceive and emotionally interpret the spaces they inhabit. Conducted at the Turkish Red Crescent European Side Child Protection Center, the research employed participatory qualitative methods—storytelling, model-making, and mapping—with two age groups (7–11 and 11–15). Findings show that experiences of deprivation and spatial instability heighten children’s sensitivity to safety, belonging, and control. Younger participants emphasized play, nature, and tangible spatial elements, while older children highlighted identity, social relations, and autonomy. Mapping data indicated that play and activity areas were perceived as safe and inclusive zones. Overall, the study demonstrates that disadvantaged children interpret space through emotional and social dimensions as much as physical characteristics. The findings underline the need for flexible, restorative, and inclusive spatial arrangements that support the resilience and psychological well-being of disadvantaged children.

Keywords

Perception , child-space relationship , children's centers , space , storytelling method

Ethical Statement

This article is derived from the Master's Thesis of Büşra Gizem Yılmaz, titled “Evaluation of the Spatial Design Layout of Child Protection Centers Through User Perception: The Case of Turkish Red Crescent Bağcılar Child Protection Center”, completed on 07.01.2022 in the Department of Urban Design, Graduate School of Science and Technology at Istanbul Technical University. The thesis was completed under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Hatice Ayataç. The article complies with national and international research and publication ethics. The study was conducted with the official permission of the Turkish Red Crescent General Directorate, Kızılay Academy Presidency, under the decision numbered E-216115-799-119345. In this context, the process for the thesis was carried out with the approval of the Turkish Red Crescent Association General Directorate and the Red Crescent Academy Presidency. I respectfully request your approval to allow the conduct of the study deemed appropriate by the Red Crescent Academy Presidency within the scope of Büşra Gizem Yılmaz's academic work, provided that the requirements of Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698, Article 94 of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, and the confidentiality principle stipulated in Article 51 of the Temporary Protection Regulation, Decision No. 2014/6883, are adhered to.

References

• Ataman, A. (2005). Gelişim ve öğrenme. Ankara: Gündüz Eğitim ve Yayıncılık.
• Avcı, E., & Dere, S. (2002). Modeling children's spatial perception: The role of model making. Istanbul: Yapı- Endüstri Merkezi Publications.
• Aydıntan, O. (2001). Turkish etymological dictionary. Ankara: Ötüken Publishing.
• Bell, B. (2007). Storytelling for early childhood: Promoting learning through fantasy hypotheses. London: Routledge.
• Çağlayan, G., Korkmaz, Ö., & Öktem, Ü. (2014). The role of visual perception in the architectural design process. Journal of Architecture and Environmental Studies, 5(2), 45–58.
• Chawla, L. (1992). Childhood place attachments. In I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 63–86). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
• Christensen, P., & James, A. (2008). Research with children: Perspectives and practices (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
• Christensen, P., & O’Brien, M. (2003). Children in the city: Home, neighbourhood and community. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Clark, A., & Moss, P. (2011). Listening to young children: The Mosaic approach (2nd ed.). London: National Children’s Bureau.
• Corsaro, W. A. (2005). The sociology of childhood (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
• Creswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Cüceloğlu, D. (1991). Human and behavior. Istanbul: Remzi Bookstore.
• Cüceloğlu, D. (1998). Psychology of perception. Istanbul: Remzi Bookstore.
• Downs, R. M., & Stea, D. (1977). Maps in minds: Reflections on cognitive mapping. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
• Ding, P. (2024). Exploring the inclusion of children from a spatial perspective. Children’s Geographies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childgeog.2024.101676
• Driskell, D. (2002). Creating better cities with children and youth: A manual for participation. London: Earthscan.
• Evans, G. W. (2019). Projecting the negative: Childhood poverty and physical environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 435–458. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103032
• Genç, G., & Sipahioğlu, S. (1990). Principles of perceptual organization and design applications. Journal of Visual Arts, 3(1), 12–27.
• Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
• Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics, 119(1), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-2697
• Göregenli, M. (2010). Environmental design and children’s spatial perception. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
• Gür, S., & Zorlu, M. (2002). The effect of early childhood experiences on spatial perception. Journal of Child Health and Early Development, 4(1), 33–49.
• Hançerlioğlu, İ. (2005). Space and meaning: The psychology of being in a place. Ankara: Phoenix Publishing.
• Hart, R. A. (1997). Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care. London: Earthscan.
• Hofmann, F. (2007). Using puppets in qualitative research with children: Techniques and ethics. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Hüttenmoser, M. (2019). Children and their living surroundings: Empirical investigations into the significance of spatial structures. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 6(4), 5–12.
• Järvinen, H. (2003). Engaging children in research: The role of play and narrative methods. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press.
• Kellert, S. R. (2002). Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. In P. H. Kahn Jr. & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (pp. 117–151). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Lee, J., & Kitchin, R. (2023). Cognitive mapping and spatial learning in children’s geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 47(2), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325221143590
• Lester, S., & Russell, W. (2008). Play for a change: Play, policy and practice: A review of contemporary perspectives. London: National Children's Bureau.
• Lester, S., & Maudsley, M. (2007). Play, naturally: A review of children's natural play. London: Children's Play Council.
• Kail, R. V. (2003). Human development: A life-span view (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kodali, H.P., Hitch, L., Dunlap, A.F., Starvaggi, M., Wyka, K.E., & Huang, T.T.K. (2023). A systematic review on the relationship between the built environment and children’s quality of life. BMC Public Health, 23 (1), 17388. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17388-8
• Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Martin, P. (2023). Children’s opportunities for play in the built environment. Children’s Geographies, 21(7), 906–921. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2023.2214505
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2016). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Nathan, A., et al. (2024). Review of the influence of the built environment on early child development through an equity lens. Lifecourse Centre Working Paper No. 27.
• Norberg-Schulz, C. (1971). Existence, time & architecture. New York, NY: Praeger.
• Onur, B. (2005). Türkiye’de çocukluğun tarihi (2nd ed.). Ankara: İmge Yayıncılık.
• Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1965). The child’s conception of space (F. J. Langdon & J. L. Lunzer, Trans.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1948)
• Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. New York, NY: Wiley.
• Polat, S. (2010). The effects of behaviors acquired in childhood on adult personality development. Journal of Psychology and Educational Research, 2(3), 78–91.
• Rakesh, D. (2024). Environmental contributions to cognitive development. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acp.2024.101676
• Riggio, E. (2002). Child friendly cities: Good governance in the best interests of the child. Environment and Urbanization, 14(2), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624780201400205
• Solstad, S. (2000). Creative expression in early childhood: Material use and child agency. Bergen: University of Bergen Press.
• Su, C. (2025). Perception of child-friendly streets and spatial planning. Buildings, 15(21), 3908. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15213908
• Spencer, C., & Blades, M. (2020). Children and their environments: Learning, using and designing spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Tang, C. (2023). Space, people, activity and time: A theoretical model for understanding children’s outdoor environments. Children & Society, 37(5), 1372–1387. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12850
• Tuan, Y.-F. (1987). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• UNICEF. (2021). The State of the World’s Children 2021: On my mind – Promoting, protecting and caring for children’s mental health. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund. https://www.unicef.org/reports/state- worlds-children-2021
• Üngür, E. (2011). Philosophy of space. Istanbul: İletişim Publishing.
• Van Eyck, A. (2008). The child, the city and the artist: An essay on architecture. Amsterdam: SUN Architecture.
• Vita, C., Lemos, I. L., & Casarin, S. F. (2023). Impact of deprivation of school physical space on child development during the pandemic. Revista CEFAC, 25(3), e20322. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982- 0216/202325320322
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Wringley, R. (2007). Facilitating children’s narratives: Puppetry and fantasy in educational research. London: Continuum.
• Yiğit, İ. (2007). The educational function of the storytelling method and principles of its implementation. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
• Yıldırım, K. (1997). The relationship between social support and psychological resilience. Bulletin of Social Psychology, 10(4), 22–35.
• Yılmaz, B. G. (2021). Evaluation of the spatial design arrangement of child protection centers through user perception: The case of the Turkish Red Crescent Bağcılar Child Protection Center (Master's thesis). Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
• Zhao, X., et al. (2023). Neighbourhood physical environment influences on children’s outdoor play: A systematic review. Frontiers in Built Environment, 9, 1193309. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1193309