COVID-19, neighborhood, commons, urban life and public health

Year 2020, , 115 - 128, 31.12.2020

Fatma Erdoğanaras , Kübra Cihangir Camur , Nilgün Görer Tamer , Kübra Mercan

https://doi.org/10.17211/tcd.816835

Cited By: 7

Abstract

Public health has been the main agenda once again in the changing spatial paradigm during the Covid-19 pandemic period, and the ‘importance of establishing a healthy life-space relationship’ has once again emerged. The pandemic processes have changed people’s living patterns and habits all over the world. In many countries, quarantines with different contents, which we can define as ‘spatial limitation-closure’, have been implemented especially for cities and urban functions. Private and public institutions, companies and government offices have switched to flexible or remote (online) or rotational work practices. Education processes were suspended first, and with the continuity of the pandemic, online education models have been adopted in many countries. During the pandemic process, the lifestyle that changed suddenly and unexpectedly forced the spatial closure by gaining permanence, the time spent in the home-work-school and public common areas changed the context of urban activities. With the increase of time spent in closed / private spaces, people’s physical and social activities have decreased, and the importance of open / common areas has started to point out the significant debates in urban studies. In this context, the focus has been on the ‘commons’,neighborhoodefined as shared resources owned by the community, and questions of what new approaches will be in the planning and design of the space have been raised. During the pandemic period, meeting places, public transportation use, etc. travels, especially urban public spaces and services, have become health-risky. These limitations and the risk of contamination have made people more concerned than before the pandemic with their dwellings and commons such as streets, neighborhoods, parks, etc. Residents who cannot get away from where they live and seek space for themselves have entered the process of rediscovering their neighborhoods and streets. The common areas located at the border of the private living area, especially within walking distance / in the neighborhood, have gained importance, and the functions of these areas in terms of sustaining life have become more visible. In this study, the contribution of neighborhood commons to public health, and their increasing importance and functions are discussed in this context. This article is mainly based on a literature review and a related assembling study on neighborhood commons and healthy living environment within the urban planning discipline. The concept of ‘public health’, which has been referred to a lot, is determined as the main axis of this study. Neighborhood commons (open and green areas, amenities and service areas, etc.) and their functions, concerning public health at the neighborhood level, are questioned relating to socio-economic factors. While the importance of common areas, parks and streets that support physical activity and mobility in the neighborhood increased during the pandemic process; it has been revealed that socio-economic and spatial inequalities negatively affect the physical and mental health of individuals, and the spatial content of public health creates a problem area that needs to be studied interdisciplinary.

Keywords

urban life, COVID-19, neighborhood, commons, urban planning, public health

COVID-19, mahalle, müşterekler, kentsel yaşam ve halk sağlığı

Abstract

Halk sağlığı, yaşanılan Covid-19 pandemi döneminde mekansal paradigmanın değişimi tartışmalarında ana gündemi oluşturmuş ve ‘sağlıklı yaşam-mekan ilişkisinin doğru kurulmasının önemi’ bir kez daha ortaya çıkmıştır. Pandemi sürecinin farklı bileşenleri insanların yaşam düzenlerini ve alışkanlıklarını tüm dünyada değiştirmiştir. Birçok ülkede özellikle kentler ve kentsel fonksiyonlar için ‘mekansal içe kapanma’ olarak tanımlayabileceğimiz farklı içeriklerde karantinalar uygulanmıştır. Özel ve resmi kurum/kuruluşlar uzaktan (online) veya dönüşümlü mesai uygulamalarına geçmek zorunda kalmış, eğitim süreçlerine önce ara verilmiş, pandeminin süreklilik kazanmasıyla çok sayıda ülkede çevrimiçi eğitim modeline geçilmiştir. Pandemi sürecinde ani olarak değişen ve beklenmedik biçimde kalıcılık kazanarak mekansal kapanmaya zorlayan yaşam şekli, ev-iş-okul ve kamusal müşterek alanlarda geçirilen süreleri, kentsel faaliyetlerin içeriğini değiştirmiştir. Kapalı/özel alanlarda geçirilen sürenin artmasıyla insanların fiziksel ve sosyal aktiviteleri azalmış, açık/müşterek alanların önemi, üzerinde çok tartışılan kentsel çalışmaları işaret etmeye başlamıştır. Bu kapsamda topluluğun sahip olduğu, paylaşılan kaynaklar olarak tanımlanan ‘müştereklere’ odaklanılmış ve mekanın planlanmasında, tasarımında yeni yaklaşımların ne olacağı soruları gündeme gelmiştir. Pandemi döneminde bulaş riski barındıran toplanma mekanları, toplu taşıma kullanımı vd. yolculuklar, özellikle kentsel kamusal mekanlar ve hizmetler sağlık açısından riskli hale gelmiştir. Bu sınırlamalar ve bulaş riski insanları yaşadıkları konut, ortak yaşam alanları olan sokak, mahalle, parklar, vb. yerler ile pandemi öncesine göre daha ilgili hale getirmiştir. Yaşadıkları yerden uzaklaşamayan ve kendilerine alan arayan kentliler mahallelerini ve sokaklarını yeniden keşfetme sürecine girmiştir. Özel yaşam alanının hemen sınırında yer alan, özellikle yürüme mesafesindeki/mahalledeki müşterek alanlar önem kazanmış, bu alanların yaşamın sürdürülmesi boyutundaki işlevleri öne çıkmıştır. Çalışmada, mahalledeki müşterek alanların halk sağlığına katkısı ve artan önemi ile işlevi, bu kapsamda tartışılmıştır. Araştırmada şehir planlama disiplini içerisinde mahalle müşterekleri ve sağlıklı yaşam çevresi temel alınarak literatür taraması ve buna bağlı bir derleme çalışması yapılmıştır. Yapılan taramanın sonucunda üzerinde çok tartışılan ‘halk sağlığı’ kavramı bu çalışmanın ana ekseni olarak belirlenmiştir. Halk sağlığını mahalle ölçeğinde ilgilendiren mahalle müşterekleri (açık ve yeşil alanlar, ortak donatı alanları vb.) ve işlevleri, sosyo-ekonomik faktörlerle etkileşimli olarak ele alınmıştır. Pandemi sürecinde mahallede fiziksel aktivite ve hareketliliği destekleyen ortak alanların, parkların ve sokakların önemi artarken; sosyo-ekonomik ve mekansal eşitsizliklerin bireylerin fiziksel ve ruhsal sağlığını olumsuz etkilediği, halk sağlığının mekansal içeriğinin, üzerinde çalışılması gereken disiplinlerarası bir sorun alanı oluşturduğu ortaya çıkarılmıştır.

Keywords

COVID-19, mahalle, müşterekler, kentsel yaşam, kent planlama, halk sağlığı

References

• Acheson, D. (1988). Public health in England: the report of the committee of inquiry into the future development of the public health function. London: The Sanitary Office.
• Baran, P. K., Smith, W.R., Moore, R.C., Floyd, M.F., Bocarro, J.N., Cosco, N.G., & Danninger, T.M. (2014). Park use among youth and adults: examination of individual, social, and urban form factor. Environment and Behavior, 46(6), 768-800. https://doi. org/10.1177%2F0013916512470134
• Beetstra, S., Derksen, D., Ro, M., Powell, W., Fry, D. E., & Kaufman, A. (2008). A ‘health commons’ approach to oral health for low-income populations in a rural state. American Journal of Public Health, 98(Supplement 1), 89-90. https://doi.org/10.2105/ ajph.92.1.12
• Camur, K. (2006). Urban improvement for the segregated - asserting the shelter right of gypsies through provision of healthy housing and living environment in situ: case of Yalova, Turkey. Lund University Housing Development and Management LTH Papers, 1-18. http://www.hdm.lth.se/fileadmin/hdm/alumni/papers/ sdd2006/sdd2006-23.pdf
• Carpentieri, G., Guida, C., & Masoumi, H. E. (2020). Multimodal accessibility to primary health services for the elderly: a case study of Naples, Italy. Sustainability, 12(3), 781. https://doi. org/10.3390/su12030781
• Cattel, V. (2001). Poor people, poor places, and poor health: the mediating role of social networks and social capital. Social Science & Medicine, 52(10), 1501–1516. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0277-9536(00)00259-8
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). (2020). <https:// www.cdc.gov/publichealthgateway/publichealthservices/essentialhealthservices. html>. Son erişim 1 Aralık 2020.
• Chadwick, E. (1842). Report to her majesty’s principal secretary of state for the home department, from the poor law commissioners, on an inquiry into the sanitary condition of the labouring population of great britain. HM Stationery Office.
• Cohen, A.K., & Schuchter, J. W. (2012). Revitalizing communities together the shared values, goals, and work of education, urban planning. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 90(2), 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11524-012-9733-3
• Corburn, J., & Cohen, A. K. (2012). Why we need urban health equity indicators: integrating science, policy, and community. Plos Medicine, 9(8), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pmed.1001285
• Crawford, J., Barton, H., Chapman, T., Higgins, M., Capon, A. G., & Thompson, S. M. (2010). Health at the heart of spatial planning strengthening the roots of planning health and the urban planner health inequalities and place planning for the health of people and planet: an Australian perspective. Planning Theory & Practice, 11(1), 91–113. https://doi. org/10.1080/14649350903537956
• Crowe, C. (2020). 5 cities most vulnerable to Covid-19: report. <https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/clever-real-estate- most-vulnerable-cities-covid-19/575010/>. Son erişim 1 Aralık 2020.
• Curtis, S., & Jones, I. R. (1998). Is there a place for geography in the analysis of health inequality?. Sociology of Health & Illness, 20(5), 645-672. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00123
• Çamur Cihangir, K. (2011). Kentsel eşitsizliklerin ‘ötekiler’ temelinde analizi: Ankara’da kadınların yaşam çevresi koşullarının ve kentsel mekandan beklentilerinin analizi. Yasal ve Yönetsel Boyutlarıyla Planlama, Prof. Dr. Feral Eke’ye Armağan Kitabı (ss.348- 366). Ankara. BİB, ISBN: 978-975-490-010-1
• Dannenberg A.L., & Jackson J. R. (2003). The impact of community design and land-use choices on public health: a scientific research agenda. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1500-1508. https:// ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1500
• Deutsche Welle Türkçe. (2020). Korona döneminde kadına şiddet başvuruları arttı. <https://www.dw.com/tr/korona-d%C3%B- 6neminde-kad%C4%B1na-%C5%9Fiddet-ba%C5%9Fvurular% C4%B1-artt%C4%B1/a-53341440>. Son Erişim 1 Aralık 2020.
• Dinçer, E., ve Özçevik, Ö. (2011). Kentli hakkı olarak kent sağlığı ve şehir planlama. Edip Dinçer ve Doç. Dr. Özlem Özçevik’e ait 2011 yılı ders notları. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
• Duhl, L. J., & Hancock, T. (1988). Promoting health in the urban context (No. 1). WHO Healthy Cities Project Office.
• Erdoğanaras, F. (2009). Etnik (çingene) işgücünün enformel işgücü piyasasına katılım biçimleri ve bu süreçte etkili olan faktörler: İstanbul (Cankurtaran) ve Edirne (Menzilahır) Örnekleri. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 75-100.
• Ergun, A. D. (2010). Türkiye’de neoliberal politikalar doğrultusunda sağlıkta dönüşüm: Isparta-Burdur örnekleri. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Isparta). https://tez.yok.gov.tr/ UlusalTezMerkezi/ Son erişim Eylül 2020.
• Fee, E., & Brown, T. M. (2005). The public health act of 1848. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 83(11), 866-867.
• Fişek, N. (1983). Halk sağlığında terim kargaşası bir sorun mudur?. Prof. Dr. Nusret Fişek’in Kitaplaşmamış Yazıları–III, Eğitim, Tıp Eğitimi, Uzmanlık, Sürekli Eğitim ve Diğer Konulardaki Yazıları: 1. https://www.ttb.org.tr/n_fisek/kitap_3/33.html
• Flacke, J., Schüle, S.A., Köckler, H., & Bolte, G. (2016). Mapping environmental inequalities relevant for health for informing urban planning interventions: a case study in the city of Dortmund, Germany. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(7), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph13070711
• Francis, J., Wood, L.J., Knuiman, M., & Giles-Corti, B. (2012). Quality or quantity? Exploring the relationship between public open space attributes and mental health in Perth, Western Australia. Elsevier Social Science & Medicine, 74(10), 1570-1577. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.01.032
• Gesler, W. M. (1992). Therapeutic landscapes: medical issues in light of the new cultural geography. Social Science Medicine 34(7), 735-746. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(92)90360-3
• Gouveia, N., & Kanai, C. (2020). Pandemics, cities and public health. Ambiente & Sociedade, 23, 1-10. https://doi.org/ 10.1590/1809-4422asoc20200120vu2020l3id
• Gurrutxaga, M.(2019). Health geography: applications in regional and urban planning. Estudios Geográficos, 80(286). https://doi. org/10.3989/estgeogr.201927.007
• Gürsoy, Ş.T. (2006). Edwin Chadwick. Toplum ve Hekim, 21(4), 262- 270.
• Hess, C. (2008). Mapping the new commons. Social Science Research Network, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1356835
• ITDP- Institute for Transportation and Policy. (2020). As the impacts of coronavirus grow, micromobility fills in the gaps. <https://www. itdp.org/2020/03/24/as-the-impacts-of-coronavirus-grow-micromobility- fills-in-the-gaps/ > Son erişim 20 Ekim 2020.
• Jones, K., & Moon, G. (1993). Medical geography: taking space seriously. Progress in Human Geography, 17(4),515-524. https:// doi.org/10.1177%2F030913259301700405
• Kaufman, A., Derksen, D., Alfero, C., De Felice, R., Sava, S., Tomedi, A., Baptiste, N., Jaeger, L., & Powell, W. (2006). The health commons and care of New Mexico’s uninsured. Annals of Family Medicine, 4(1), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.539
• Kaufman, A., Galbraith, P., Alfero, C., Urbina, C., Derksen, D., Wiese, W., Contreras, R., & Kalishman, N. (1996). Fostering the health of communities: a unifying mission for the university of New Mexico health sciences center. Academic Medicine, 71(5), 432- 440. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199605000-00010
• Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., Lochner, K. ve Prothrow-Stith, D. (1997). Social capital, income inequality, and mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 87(9), 1491-1498. https://doi.org/10.2105/ AJPH.87.9.1491
• Kaya, İ. (2013). Coğrafi düşüncede mekan tartışmaları. Düşünce Dergisi, 4, 1-13.
• Kearns, R. A. (1993). Place and health: towards a reformed medical geography. The Professional Geographer, 45(2), 139-147. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1993.00139.x
• Kearns, R. A., & Joseph, A. E. (1993). Space in its place: developing the link in medical geography. Social Science & Medicine, 37(6), 711-717. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(93)90364-A
• Kearns, R., & Moon, G. (2002). From medical to health geography: novelty, place and theory after a decade of change. Progress in Human Geography, 26(5), 605-625. https://doi.org/ 10.1191%2F0309132502ph389oa
• King, A. C., Castro, C., Wilcox, S., Eyler, A. A., Sallis, J. F., & Brownson, R. C. (2000). Personal and environmental factors associated with physical inactivity among different racial–ethnic groups of us middle-aged and older-aged women. Health Psychology 19(4), 354-364. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-6133.19.4.354
• Lacoste, Y., & Yarayıcı, A. (1998). Coğrafya Savaşmak İçindir. Özne Yayınları.
• MacDougall, C., Cooke, R., Owen, N., Willson, K., & Bauman, A. (1997). Relating physical activity to health status, social connections and community facilities. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 21(6), 631-637. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-842X.1997.tb01768.x
• Nettle, D. (2011). Large differences in publicly visible health behaviours across two neighbourhoods of the same city. PLOS (Public Library of Science) One, 6(6), e21051. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0021051
• O’Brien, D. T. (2012). Managing the urban commons the relative influence of individual and social incentives on the treatment of public space. Human Nature, 23(4), 467–489. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12110-012-9156-6
• Özgen, N. (2010). Bilim olarak coğrafya ve evrimsel paradigmaları. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 19(2), 1-25.
• Peet, R. (1979). Societal contradiction and marxist geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 69,164-169. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1979.tb01247.x
• Poon, L. (2020). A lesson from social distancing: build better balconies. <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-20/ lesson-from-coronavirus-build-better-balconies>. Son erişim 1 Aralık 2020.
• Rose, G. (1992). Rose’s strategy of preventive medicine. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780192630971
• Sallis, J. F., Hovell, M. F., Hofstetter, C. R., Elder, J. P., Hackley, M., Caspersen, C. J., & Powell, K. E. (1990). Distance between homes and exercise facilities related to frequency of exercise among San Diego residents. Public Health Reports, 105(2), 179-185.
• Srinivasan, S., & O’Fallon, L. R. (2003). Creating healthy communities, healthy homes, healthy people: initiating a research agenda on the built environment and public health. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1446-1450. https://ajph.aphapublications. org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1446
• Şeremet, M. (2016). Geographical education in Turkey: challenges and opportunities. Geography, 101(3), 146-155. https://www. jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26546734
• Tampubolon, G. (2009). Neighbourhood social capital improves individual health quality of life in a national sample from wales. The American Economic Review, 1-18. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen. de/id/eprint/16758
• Teale, C. (2020). $1.2m grant to turn NYC’s closed streets into kid-friendly play spaces. <https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ news/12m-grant -to-turn-nycs-closed-streets-into-kid-friendlyplay- spaces/582306/>. Son erişim 23 Ekim 2020.
• Tekel, A., ve Tamer-Görer, N. (2016). Yürünebilirlik kavramı ve yürünebilirliği etkileyen temel faktörler. 80 Sonrası Mekan ve Planlama (ss.207-215). Gazi Üniv. Mim. Fak. Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Bölümü Yayını. ISBN: 978-975-507-283-8. http://webftp.gazi. edu.tr/mimarlik/80snorasimekanveplanlama_ekitap.pdf
• Tekeli, İ. (2020). Dünyanın salgınlar ve kentler sarmalında geldiği nokta: Covid-19. <http://ilhantekelivakfi.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2020/05/Kent-ve-Salg%C4%B1n-Hastal%C4%B1klar-Covid- 19.pdf>. Son erişim 1 Aralık 2020.
• Toussaint, K. (2020). Could this market design be the future of social distance food shopping?. Fast Company. <https://www. fastcompany.com/90491242/could-this-market-design-be-thefuture -of-social-distance-food>. Son erişim 25 Ekim 2020.
• Wenga, M., Ding, N., Li, J., Jin, X., Xiao, H., He, Z., & Su, S. (2019). The 15-minute walkable neighborhoods: measurement, social inequalities and implications for building healthy communities in urban china. Journal of Transport & Health, 13, 259-273. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.05.005
• Winslow, C. (1920). The untilled fields of public health. Science, 51(1356), 23-33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1645011
• Wong, M., Yu, R., & Woo, J. (2017). Effects of perceived neighbourhood environments on self-rated health among community-dwelling older Chinese. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(6), 614. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph14060614