Sosyal etkileşim ortamı olan kent parklarında kullanıcı tercihlerinin belirlenmesi: Artvin-Hopa örneği

Öz

İnsanların sosyal refahı ve psiko-fiziksel sağlığı üzerinde etkili bir faktör olan kent parkları, bireylerin kent yaşamından uzaklaşıp doğayla etkileşim kurabilecekleri ve sosyalleşebilecekleri mekanlar sunmaktadır. Bu mekanların sağladığı servislerin sürekliliği kullanıcıların alandan elde ettikleri faydalarla bağlantılıdır. Buradan hareketle bu çalışmada kent parklarında kullanıcı tercihlerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma alanı olarak Hopa ilçesinin kullanım yoğunluğu fazla olan 15 Temmuz Demokrasi Şehitleri Parkı ve 14 Mart Parkı seçilmiştir. Çalışmada kullanıcı tercihlerinin belirlenmesinde 215 kişiyle anket çalışması yürütülmüştür. Kullanıcıların mekânsal tercihlerinin belirlenmesinde ise gözlem tekniğinden faydalanılmıştır. Anket çalışması sonucunda kullanıcıların çalışma alanını yılda birkaç defa ve daha çok yaz aylarında ziyaret ettiği, çalışma alanında daha çok öğleden sonra ve akşam saatlerinde 0-1 saat zaman geçirdikleri, çalışma alanını sahil kenarında oturmak, yürüyüş yapmak ve deniz manzarasını seyretmek amacıyla kullandıkları belirlenmiştir. Alanların daha çok çocuklara yönelik olması, yöresel lezzetlerin eksikliği ve toplu oturma alanlarının olmaması çalışma alanında görülen eksikliklerdir. Gözlem çalışmasının sonucunda da kullanıcıların çok yoğun ve yoğun kullandığı mekanların çocuk oyun alanı, yürüyüş yolları, iskele, su kenarı oturma alanları ve yeme-içme alanları olduğu belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen veriler ışığında kullanıcıların alanı dört mevsim kullanılabileceği, daha uzun zaman geçirilebileceği, farklı yaş gruplarına da hizmet verecek bir alan olması yönünde öneriler getirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kent parkları
• Kullanıcı tercihleri
• Anket ve gözlem teknikleri
• Hopa

Determination of user preferences in urban parks that social interaction environment: The case of Hopa

Öz

Urban parks, are an effective factor on the social well-being and psycho-physical health of people, offer spaces where people can get away from urban life and interact with nature and socialize. Ensuring the continuity of the services provided by these spaces is linked to the benefits the users gain from the area. From this point of view, in this study it was aimed to determine user preferences in urban parks. The 15th of July Democracy Martyrs Park and the 14th of March Park were selected as the study area in Hopa. In the study, a questionnaire was conducted with 215 people to determine the user preferences. The observation technique was used to determine the spatial preferences of the users. Results showed that the users visit the study area several times a year and mostly during the summer, spend 0-1 hours more in the afternoons and evenings, use the study area to sitting along the coastline, walking and watching the sea view. The reasons such as the fact that the areas are mostly for children, the lack of local flavors and the absence of collective seating areas are the deficiencies in the study area. As a result of the observation study, it was determined that the places where the users are very intensely and intensely used are children's playgrounds, walking paths, pier, sitting areas around the waterfront and eating and drinking areas. In the light of the data obtained, suggestions have been proposed about the area of the users can be used in all seasons, can be spent longer and will also serve different age groups.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Urban parks
• User preferences
• Guestionnaire and obsercation techniques
• Hopa

Kaynakça

1. Ayhan A, Atabeyoğlu Ö (2020) Giresun kenti parklarında kullanıcı memnuniyeti. Kent Akademisi 13(2):305-314
2. Barbosa O, Tratalos JA, Armsworth PR, Davies RG, Fuller RA, Johnson P, Gaston KJ (2007) Who benefits from access to green space? A case study from Sheffield, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning 83(2-3):187–195
3. Basu S, Nagendra H (2020) Perceptions of park visitors on access to urban parks and benefits of green spaces. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 57:126959
4. Bedimo-Rung AL, Mowen AJ, Cohen DA (2005) The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: a conceptual model. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28(2):159–168
5. Bekçi B, Üçok M, Yılmaz H (2019) Rize kentsel kıyı şeridinin kullanıcı memnuniyetinin belirlenmesi. Nevşehir Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi 8(2):125-136
6. Brandli LL, Prietto PDM, Neckel A (2014) Estimating the willingness to pay for improvement of an urban park in southern Brazil using the contingent valuation method. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 140(4):1e10
7. Chiesura A (2004) The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning 68(1):129–138
8. Cohen DA, Han B, Nagel CJ, Harnik P, McKenzie TL, Evenson KR, Marsh T, Williamson S, Vaughan C, Katta S (2016) The first national study of neighborhood parks: Implications for physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 51(4):419–426

9. Dinda S, Ghosh S (2021) Perceived benefits, aesthetic preferences and willingness to pay for visiting urban parks: A case study in Kolkata, India. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks. Article In press
10. Duan Y, Wagner P, Zhang R, Wulff H, Brehm W (2018) Physical activity areas in urban parks and their use by the elderly from two cities in China and Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning 178:261–269
11. Dwyer JF, McPherson EG, Schroeder HW, Rowntree RA (1992) Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18(5):227-234
12. Fan Y, Luo JM (2021) Development of a measurement scale for residents’ attitudes toward leisure activities in urban parks. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 33:100360
13. Fan Z, Duan J, Lu Y, Zou W, Lan W (2021) A geographical detector study on factors influencing urban park use in Nanjing, China. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 59:126996
14. Fang Y, Bi D, Gan Q (2012) Analysis on the urban residents’ perception of the park free opening-up policy in the context of socioeconomic transformation: A case of Guangzhou. Tourism Tribune 27(8):78–87
15. Finaeva O (2017) Role of green spaces in favourable microclimate creating in urban environment (Exemplified by italian cities). IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 262:012141
16. Haase D, Larondelle N, Andersson E, Artmann M, Borgstrom S, Breuste, J, Gomez-Baggethun E, Gren A, Hamstead Z, Hansen R, Kabisch N, Kremer P, Langemeyer J, Rall EL, McPhearson T, Pauleit S, Qureshi S, Schwarz N, Voigt A, Wurster D, Elmqvist T (2014) A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: Concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43:413–433
17. Hartig T, Mitchell R, de Vries S, Frumkin H (2014) Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health 35:207-228
18. Hujiabula B, Var M (2021) Büyükçekmece ilçesi Büyük Atatürk Parkı kullanıcılarının memnuniyet durumlarının saptanması. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi 9:293-306
19. Hodgson P, French K, Major RE (2007) Avian movement across abrupt ecological edges: Differential responses to housing density in an urban matrix. Landscape and Urban Planning 79(3):266–272
20. Jayakody RRJC, Amarathunga D, Haigh R (2018) Integration of disaster management strategies with planning and designing public open spaces. Procedia Engineering 212: 954–961
21. Jesdale BM, Morello-Frosch R, Cushing L (2013) The racial/ethnic distribution of heat risk-related land cover in relation to residential segregation. Environmental Health Perspectives 121(7):811–817
22. Karakaya N, Cengiz Taşlı T (2019) Yaşam kalitesinin arttırılmasında kent parklarının önemi: Eskişehir örneği. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi 14(20):1259-1283
23. Kazmierczak A, James P (2007) The role of urban green spaces in improving social inclusion. USIR Conference Paper. https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB16580.pdf. Accessed 3 March 2021
24. Konijnendijk CC, Annerstedt M, Nielsen AB, Maruthaveeran S (2013) Benefits of urban parks: a systematic review- a report for IFPRA. Copenhagen and Alnarp
25. Lagbas AJ (2019) Social valuation of regulating and cultural ecosystem services of Arroceros Forest Park: a man-made forest in the city of Manila, Philippines. Journal of Urban Management 8(1):159e177
26. Mantymaa E, Jokinen M, Juutinen A, Lankia T, Louhi P (2021). Providing ecological, cultural and commercial services in an urban park: A travel cost–contingent behavior application in Finland. Landscape Urban and Urban Planning 209:104042
27. McCormack GR, Rock M, Toohey AM, Hignell D (2010) Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: a review of qualitative research. Health Place 16(4):712–726
28. Neckel A, Da Silva JL, Saraiva PP, Kujawa HA, Araldi J, Paladini EP (2020) Estimation of the economic value of urban parks in Brazil, the case of the City of Passo Fundo. Journal of Cleaner Production 264:121369
29. Niemelä J, Saarela SR, Söderman T, Kopperoinen L, Yli-Pelkonen V, Väre S, Kotze DJ (2010) Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning andconservation of urban green spaces: A Finland case study. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(11): 3225–3243
30. Nielsen AB (2014) Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: A review of empirical evidence. Urban Ecosystem 17(1):305
31. Önal S, Sağır M (2018) Ankara kent parklarının kullanımının belirlenmesi. Ankara Araştırmaları Dergisi 6(1):77-90
32. Paul S, Nagendra H (2017) Factors influencing perceptions and use of urban nature: Surveys of park visitors in Delhi. Land 6(27):1-23
33. Peters K, Elands B, Buijus A (2010) Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Social issues of forest recreation. Urban Forestry and Urban Planning 9(2):93–100
34. Setala H, Francini G, Allen JA, Jumpponen A, Hui N, Kotze DJ (2017) Urban parks provide ecosystem services by retaining metals and nutrients in soils. Environmental Pollution 231:451–461
35. Strum R, Cohen D (2014) Proximity to urban parks and mental health. The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics 17:19–24
36. Subiza-Pereza M, Vozmedianoa L, Juan CS (2020) Green and blue settings as providers of mental health ecosystem services: Comparing urban beaches and parks and building a predictive model of psychological restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning 204: 103926
37. Thompson CW (2002) Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 60(2):59–72
38. Torabi N, Lindsay J, Smith J, Khor L-A, Sainsbury O (2020) Widening the lens: Understanding urban parks as a network. Cities 98:102527
39. Wan C, Shen GQ, Choi S (2020) Effects of physical and psychological factors on users’ attitudes, use patterns, and perceived benefits toward urban parks. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 51:126691
40. Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP (2014) Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning 125:234–244
41. Xiaolu Z, Masud PR (2012) Social benefits of urban green space: A conceptual framework of valuation and accessibility measurements. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 23(2):173–18