Social Intimacy and Well-Being in Outdoor Recreation Areas

Öz

The aim of the study is to understand the relationship between the social intimacy established by individuals in urban outdoor recreation areas and their well-being. A qualitative research design was adopted, and in-depth interviews were conducted with 31 participants determined by purposive sampling technique. The data obtained from the participants were coded within the theoretical framework of the PERMA model using the MAXQDA program and interpreted through thematic analysis. The findings of the research show compatibility with the dimensions of the PERMA model while also broadening the scope of the model’s application. The study concluded that there is a positive relationship between the social intimacy that individuals establish in urban outdoor recreation areas and their well-being, and that urban outdoor recreation areas play a role in accelerating the well-being process. Additionally, the research highlights the gap in the literature by pointing out that studies focusing on the relationship between outdoor recreation activities and well-being are generally sports action-oriented. In this context, the results of this research, designed as an original study, contribute to the literature and well-being theory. It also offers practical contributions for social psychology and providers of urban outdoor recreation opportunities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Urban open space
• Outdoor recreation
• Well-being
• Social intimacy
• PERMA model

Açık Alan Rekreasyon Mekânlarında Sosyal Yakınlık ve İyi Oluş

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, bireylerin kentsel açık alan rekreasyon mekânlarında kurdukları sosyal yakınlık ile iyi oluşları arasındaki ilişkiyi anlamaktır. Araştırmada nitel araştırma deseni tercih edilmiş, amaçlı örnekleme tekniğiyle belirlenen 31 katılımcıyla derinlemesine görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Katılımcılardan elde edilen veriler, MAXQDA programı aracılığıyla PERMA modeli teorik çerçevesi kapsamında kodlanmış ve tematik analizle yorumlanmıştır. Araştırmanın bulguları, PERMA modelindeki boyutlarla uyumluluk göstermekle birlikte modelin uygulama kapsamını da genişletmektedir. Araştırmada kentsel açık alan rekreasyon mekânlarında bireylerin sosyal yakınlık kurması ile iyi oluşları arasında olumlu bir ilişkinin olduğu, bu ilişkide ise kentsel açık alanların iyi oluş sürecini hızlandıran bir görev üstlendiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bununla birlikte araştırma açık alan rekreasyon faaliyetleri ve iyi oluş ilişkisine odaklanan çalışmaların genellikle sportif eylem odaklı olduğunu vurgulayarak alanyazında yer alan araştırma boşluğuna da dikkat çekmektedir. Bu bağlamda özgün bir çalışma olarak tasarlanan bu araştırmanın sonuçları, alanyazına ve iyi oluş teorisine katkı sağlamaktadır. Aynı zamanda toplumsal psikoloji ve kentsel açık alan rekreasyon olanakları sağlayıcıları açısından pratik katkılar sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kentsel açık alan
• Açık alan rekreasyonu
• İyi oluş
• Sosyal yakınlık
• PERMA model

Etik Beyan

Yazarlar olarak araştırmanın her aşamasında bilimsel etik ilkelere uyduğumuzu beyan ederiz.

Kaynakça

1. Akova, O., Şahin, G. ve Öğretmenoğlu, M. (2019). Rekreasyon Deneyiminin Psikolojik İyi Oluş Üzerine Etkisi: Y Kuşağı Üzerinde Bir Araştırma, Spor Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4 (2): 124-139.
2. Bedimo-Rung, A.L., Mowen, A.J. ve Cohen, D.A. (2005). The Significance of Parks to Physical Activity and Public Health: A Conceptual Model, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28 (2): 159-168.
3. Birleşmiş Milletler. (2018). 2018 Revision of World Urbanization Prospects. Department of Economic Social Affairs. https://www.un.org/en/desa/2018-revision-world-urbanization-prospects#:~:text=Today%2C%2055%25%20of%20the%20world's,increase%20to%2068%25%20by%202050, Erişim tarihi: 5 Ağustos 2024.
4. Bogdan, R.C. ve Biklen, S.K. (2007). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods. (5. Baskı). Pearson.
5. Bosker, M. (2022). City Origins, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 94, 103677.
6. Bradburn, N.M. (1969). The Structure of Psychological Well-Being. Şikago, IL: Aldin.
7. Braun, V. ve Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2): 77-101.
8. Baraun, V. ve Clarke, V. (2019). To Saturate or Not to Saturate? Questioning Data Saturation As A Useful Concept for Thematic Analysis and Sample-Size Rationales, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13 (2): 201-216.

9. Buchecker, M. ve Degenhardt, B. (2015). The Effects of Urban Inhabitants’ Nearby Outdoor Recreation on Their Well-Being and Their Psychological Resilience, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 10: 55-62.
10. Cabrera, V. ve Donaldson, S.I. (2023). PERMA to PERMA+4 Building Blocks of Well-Being: A Systematic Review of The Empirical Literature, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 19 (3): 510-529.
11. Carruthers, C.P. ve Hood, C.D. (2007). Building a Life of Meaning Through Therapeutic Recreation: The Leisure and Well-Being Model, Part I, Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 41 (4): 276-297.
12. Colley, K., Currie, M. ve Irvine, K.N. (2023). Outdoor Recreation and the Wellbeing of Rural Residents: Insight from Scotland. İçinde; P.H. Johansen, A. Tietjen, E.B. Iversen, H.L. Lolle ve J.K. Fisker (Editörler), Rural Quality of Life (ss. 427-444). Manchester: Manchester Üniversitesi Yayınları.
13. Collins, C.S. ve Stockton, C.M. (2018). The Central Role of Theory in Qualitative Research, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17 (1): 1-10.
14. Corbin, J. ve Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (4. Baskı). Sage.
15. Cox, D.T.C., Shanahan, D.F., Hudson, H.L., Fuller, R.A. ve Gaston, K.J. (2018). The Impact of Urbanisation on Nature Dose and The Implications for Human Health, Landscape and Urban Planning, 179, 72-80.
16. Creswell, J.W. ve Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5. Baskı). Sage.
17. Çakır Sümer, G. (2014). Rize’de Kentleşme Süreci, Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 10 (1): 163-183.
18. Çakırlar, A. ve Yaman, Ç. (2022). Pozitif Psikoloji Bağlamında Terapötik Rekreasyon ve İyi Oluş İlişkisi: Bir Literatür Taraması, The Online Journal of Recreation and Sports, 11 (4): 47-58.
19. Demirci, İ., Ekşi, H., Dinçer, D. ve Kardaş, S. (2017). Beş Boyutlu İyi Oluş Modeli: PERMA Ölçeği Türkçe Formunun Geçerlik ve Güvenirliği, The Journal of Happiness and Well-Being, 5 (1): 60-77.
20. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective Well-Being, Psychological Bulletin, 95 (3): 542-575.
21. Diener, E. ve Larsen, R.J. (1993). The Experience of Emotional Well-Being. İçinde; M. Lewis ve J.M. Haviland (Editörler), Handbook of Emotions (ss. 405-415). New York: Guilford Yayınları.
22. Diener, E., Suh, E.M., Lucas, R.E. ve Smith, H.E. (1999). Subjective Well-Being: Three Decades of Progress, Psychological Bulletin, 125 (2): 276-302.
23. Disabato, D.J., Goodman, F.R., Kashdan, T.B., Short, J.L. ve Jarden, A. (2016). Different Types of Well-Being? A Cross-Cultural Examination of Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being, Psychological Assessment, 28 (5): 471-482.
24. Dünya Bankası. (2023). Urban Population (% of Total Population), https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS, Erişim tarihi: 5 Ağustos 2024.
25. Erdem, A.D., Yavaş, İ. ve Bilgili, A. (2023). Sanayileşme Perspektifinden Şehirlerin Dönüşümü: Bursa Örneği, TroyAcademy, 8 (2): 210-234.
26. Eurostat (2023). Quality of Life Indicators, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Quality_of_life_indicators, Erişim tarihi: 5 Ağustos 2024.
27. Garvey, C.M. ve Jones, R. (2021). Is There a Place for Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research?, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20: 1-7.
28. Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction (5. Baskı). Pearson.
29. Goodman, F.R., Disabato, D.J., Kashdan, T.B., ve Kauffman, S.B. (2018). Measuring Well-Being: A Comparison of Subjective Well-Being and PERMA, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13 (4): 321-332.
30. Hayward, J. (1989). Urban Parks. İçinde; I. Altman ve E. H. Zube (Editörler), Public Places and Spaces, Human Behavior and Environment, (ss. 193-216). Boston, MA: Springer.
31. Herzog, C., Handke, C. ve Hitters, E. (2019). Analyzing Talk and Text II: Thematic Analysis. İçinde; H. Van den Bulck, M. Puppis, K. Donders, ve L. Van Audenhove (Editörler), The Palgrave Handbook of Methods for Media Policy Research (ss. 385-401). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
32. International Alliance of Inhabitants. (2005). World Charter for the Right to the City, https://www.right2city.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/A1.2_World-Charter-for-the-Right-to-the-City.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 06 Ağustos 2024.
33. Joshanloo, M. (2016). Revisiting the Empirical Distinction between Hedonic and Eudaimonic Aspects of Well-Being Using Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling, Journal of Happiness Studies, 17: 2023-2036.
34. Jovanovic, V. (2015). Structural Validity of The Mental Health Continuous-Short Form: The Bifactor Model of Emotional, Social and Psychological Well-Being, Personality and Individual Differences, 75: 154-159.
35. Kaimakamis, D. (2022) Predictions for Activity Involvement via PERMA Well-Being Model in Mountain Climbing-Hiking Participants on Mt.Olympus, International Journal of Recreation and Sport Science, 6 (1): 44-53.
36. Kern, M.L., Waters, L.E., Adler, A. ve White, M.A. (2014). A Multidimensional Approach to Measuring Well-Being in Students: Application of the PERMA Framework, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10 (3): 262-271.
37. Keyes, C.L.M. (1998). Social Well-Being, Social Psychology Quarterly, 61: 121-140.
38. Keyes, C.L.M., Shmotkin, D. ve Ryff, C.D. (2002). Optimizing Well-Being: The Emprical Encounter of Two Traditions, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (6): 1007-1023.
39. Koç, M.C. (2022). Rekreasyonel Spor İyi Oluş Ölçeği (RSİOÖ) Türkçe Versiyonu: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması, Journal of Recreation and Tourism Research, 9 (4): 86-97.
40. Korpela, K., Borodulin, K., Neuvonen, M., Paronen, O. ve Tyrväinen, L. (2014). Analyzing the Mediators between Nature-Based Outdoor Recreation and Emotional Well-Being, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37: 1-7.
41. Kovich, M.K., Simpson, V.L., Foli, K.J., Hass, Z. ve Phillips, R.G. (2023). Application of the PERMA Model of Well Being in Undergraduate Students, International Journal of Community Well-Being, 6: 1-20.
42. Kun, Á., Balogh, P. ve Krasz, K.G. (2017). Development of the Work-Related Well-Being Questionnaire Based on Seligman’s PERMA Model, Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, 25 (1): 56-63.
43. Lagina, M., Grum, C., Sandhu, G. ve Ruff, A.L. (2024). Sources of Joy in Medical Educators as Described by the PERMA Model, Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 36 (1): 53-60.
44. Lee, K.J., Casper, J., Powell, R. ve Floyd, M.F. (2023). African Americans’ Outdoor Recreation Involvement, Leisure Satisfaction, and Subjective Well-Being, Current Psychology, 42: 27840-27850.
45. Lee, J., Krause, A.E. ve Davidson, J.W. (2017). The PERMA Well-Being Model and Music Facilitation Practice: Preliminary Documentation for Well-Being through Music Provision in Australian Schools, Research Studies in Music Education, 39 (1): 73-89.
46. Lincoln, Y.S. ve Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage.
47. Mansfield, L., Kay, T., Meads, C., John, A., Daykin, N., Duffy, L.G., Lane, J., Dolan, P., Testoni, S., Julier, G., Payne, A., Tomlinson, A. ve Victor, C. (2018). A Systematic Review of Outdoor Recreation (In Green Space and Blue Space) for Families to Promote Subjective Wellbeing. https://whatworkswellbeing.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Outdoor-Rec-Systematic-Review-final_0131621000.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 11 Temmuz 2024.
48. Maslow, A.H. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being (2. Baskı). D. Van Nostrand.
49. Mendes, J., Medeiros, T., Silva, O., Tomás, L., Silva, L. ve Ferreira, J.A. (2022). PERMA Model of Well-Being Applied to Portuguese Senior Tourists: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Sustainability, 14 (13), 7538.
50. Miller, R.S. ve Lefcourt, H.M. (1982). The Assessment of Social Intimacy, Journal of Personality Assessment, 46 (5): 514-518.
51. Ozuem, W., Willis, M. ve Howell, K. (2022). Thematic Analysis Without Paradox: Sensemaking and Context, Qualitative Market Research, 25 (1): 143-157.
52. Petersen, E., Bischoff, A., Liedtke, G. ve Martin, A.J. (2021). How Does Being Solo in Nature Affect Well-Being? Evidence from Norway, Germany and New Zealand, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18: 7897.
53. Pile, S. (1999). What Is A City. İçinde; D. Massey, J. Allen ve S. Pile (Editörler), City Worlds (ss. 3-52). Londra: Routledge.
54. Pomfret, G., Sand, M. ve May, C. (2023). Conceptualising the Power of Outdoor Adventure Activities for Subjective Well-Being: A Systematic Literature Review, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 42, 1-11.
55. Puhakka, R. (2021). University Students’ Participation in Outdoor Recreation and the Perceived Well-Being Effects of Nature, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 36:100425.
56. Ruslin, R., Mashuri, S., Rasak, M.S.A., Alhabsyi, F. ve Syam, H. (2022). Semi-structured Interview: A Methodological Reflection on the Development of a Qualitative Research Instrument in Educational Studies, IOSR Journal of Research and Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 12 (1): 22-29.
57. Ryan, R.M. ve Deci, E.L. (2001). On Happiness and Humanpotentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being, Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 141-166.
58. Ryff, C.D. (1989). Happiness Is Everything, or Is It? Explorations on the Meaning of Psychological Well-Being, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (6): 1069-1081.
59. Ryff, C.D. ve Keyes, C.L.M. (1995). The Structure of Psychological Well-Being Revisited, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69: 719-727.
60. Ryff, C.D. ve Singer, B. (1996). Psychological Well-Being: Meaning, Measurement and Implications for Psychotherapy Research, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 65 (1): 14-23.
61. Saltık, Z. ve Akova, O. (2019). Yakın Açık Alan Rekreasyon Aktivitelerinin İyi Olma Hali, Psikolojik Dayanıklılık, Yenilenme Deneyimi, Yaşam Doyumu ve İş Tatmini Üzerindeki Etkileri, Journal of Sport and Recreation Researches, 1 (1): 1-20.
62. Sandstrom, G.M. ve Dunn, E.W. (2014). Social Interactions and Well-Being: The Surprising Power of Weak Ties, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40 (7): 910-922.
63. Schlemmer, P., Scholtel, T., Niedermeier, M., Kopp, M. ve Schnitzer, M. (2021). Do Outdoor Adventure Park Activities Increase Visitors’ Well-Being?, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 35, 100391.
64. Seeley, I.H. (1973). Outdoor Recreation and the Urban Environment. Springer.
65. Seligman, M.E.P. (2011). Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-Being. New York, NY: Free Yayınları.
66. Seligman, M. (2018). PERMA and The Building Blocks of Well-Being, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13 (4): 333-335.
67. Sezer, B. ve Akova, O. (2016). Kent Sakinlerinin Rekreasyon Tercihleri, Rekreasyon Alanlarının Algılanan Değeri ve Gerçek Kullanımı Arasındaki İlişki, Trakya Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi E-Dergi, 5 (2): 94-115.
68. Shaheen, M., Pradhan, S. ve Ranajee. (2019). Sampling in Qualitative Research. İçinde; M. Gupta, M. Shaheen ve K.P. Reddy (Editörler), Qualitative Techniques for Workplace Data Analysis (ss. 25-51). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
69. Song, G., Edelheim, J. ve Johnson, J. (2024). Positive Tourist Experience: The PERMA Approach for Understanding the Well-Being of Young Tourists, Tourism, An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 72 (4): 654-659.
70. Stebbins, R.A. (2001). Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences (Cilt 48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
71. Stevens, R.E., Loudon, D.L., Cole, H. ve Wrenn, B. (2012). Concise Encyclopedia of Church and Religious Organization Marketing. New York: Routledge.
72. Şahyar Akdemir, D. (2020). Kentli Hakları ve Kent Konseyleri, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 40: 149-167.
73. Thompson Coon, J., Boddy, K., Stein, K., Whear, R., Barton, J. ve Depledge, M.H. (2011). Does Participating in Physical Activity in Outdoor Natural Environments Have A Greater Effect on Physical and Mental Wellbeing Than Physical Activity Indoors? A Systematic Review, Environmental Science and Technology, 45 (5): 1761-1772.
74. Tunç, B. (2022). Seligman’dan İyi Oluşa Farklı Bir Bakış: PERMA Modeli, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9 (1): 1-15.
75. Türk Dil Kurumu. (t.y.). Şehir, (Güncel Türkçe Sözlük), https://sozluk.gov.tr/, Erişim tarihi: 5 Ağustos 2024.
76. Uçar, A., Şemşit, S. ve Negiz, N. (2017). Avrupa Birliği Akıllı Kent Uygulamaları ve Türkiye’deki Yansımaları, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22 (Kayfor 15 Özel Sayısı): 1785-1798.
77. Wammerl, M., Jaunig, J., Mairunteregger, T. ve Streit, P. (2019). The German Version of The PERMA-Profiler: Evidence for Construct and Convergent Validity of The PERMA Theory of Well-Being in German Speaking Countries, Journal of Well-Being Assessment, 3: 75-96.
78. Whiting, J.W., Larson, L.R., Green, G.T. ve Kralowec, C. (2017). Outdoor Recreation Motivation and Site Preferences Across Diverse Racial/ Ethnic Groups: A Case Study of Georgia State Parks, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 18: 10-21.
79. Yılmaz, E. ve Çiftçi, S. (2011). Kentlerin Ortaya Çıkışı ve Sosyo-Politik Açıdan Türkiye’de Kentleşme Dönemleri, Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10 (35): 252-267.