Kentsel Yeşil Alanların Mekansal Dağılımlarının Mahalle Ölçeğinde Değerlendirilmesi: Elazığ Kenti Örneği

Öz

Bu çalışma, Elazığ kent merkezinde yeşil alanların mekânsal dağılımını, erişilebilirlik düzeylerini ve ekonomik göstergelerle ilişkisini mahalle ölçeğinde analiz etmektedir. Araştırmada, uzaktan algılama, Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS) ve yerinde gözlem yöntemlerinin birlikte kullanıldığı dört aşamalı bir süreç izlenmiştir. (i) Sentinel-2A uydu görüntüleri ve belediye verileriyle yeşil alan sınırları belirlenmiş; (ii) CBS tabanlı buffer analizine dayalı erişilebilirlik değerlendirmesi yapılmıştır. Bu analizlerde, Dünya Sağlık Örgütü (WHO, 2012) ve Mekânsal Planlar Yapım Yönetmeliği (MPYY, 2014) standartlarına göre 300 m ve 500 m yaya erişim mesafeleri tampon bölgeler (buffer zone) oluşturulmuştur. (iii) Yeşil alan yeterliliği, kişi başına düşen yeşil alan miktarı (≥10 m²) ve alan büyüklüğü (≥0,5 ha) ölçütlerine göre değerlendirilmiştir. (iv) Mahalle ölçeğinde arsa rayiç bedelleri analiz edilerek yeşil alan erişimi ile ekonomik değerler arasındaki mekânsal ilişki incelenmiştir. Bulgular, kişi başına düşen yeşil alan miktarının ortalama 10,2 m² ile ulusal standartlara yakın olmasına rağmen, merkez mahallelerde yeşil alan oranının düşük; çevre mahallelerde erişimin daha yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma bulguları, SKA 3, SKA 10, SKA 11 ve SKA 13 hedefleriyle doğrudan ilişkilidir ve orta ölçekli Anadolu kentleri için mekâna özgü bir planlama modeli sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kentsel yeşil alanlar
• Erişilebilirlik
• CBS
• Sosyoekonomik eşitsizlik
• Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amaçları

Spatial Evaluation of Urban Green Spaces at the Neighborhood Scale: The Case of Elazığ, Türkiye

Öz

This study analyzes the spatial distribution, accessibility, and economic relationships of urban green spaces in the central district of Elazığ at the neighborhood scale. The research follows a four-stage process integrating remote sensing, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and field observations. (i) Green space boundaries were identified using Sentinel-2A satellite imagery and municipal datasets; (ii) accessibility was assessed through a GIS-based buffer analysis. In this analysis, pedestrian buffer zones of 300 m and 500 m were generated in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO, 2012) and the Turkish Spatial Plans Production Regulation (MPYY, 2014). (iii) The adequacy of green spaces was evaluated based on per capita green area (≥10 m²) and minimum size (≥0.5 ha) criteria. (iv) Parcel-based land value analyses were conducted to examine the spatial relationship between green space accessibility and economic indicators. The findings show that although the citywide average green space per capita (10.2 m²) aligns with national standards, central neighborhoods exhibit low green area ratios despite high land values, whereas peripheral districts have higher accessibility levels. The findings directly align with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 3, 10, 11, and 13), offering a spatially grounded planning model for medium-sized Anatolian cities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Urban green spaces
• Accessibility
• GIS
• Socioeconomic inequality
• Sustainable Development Goals

Kaynakça

1. Akkemik, Ü., Alp, M. A., Sevgi, O., & Ekşi, M. (2021). Kentsel yeşil alan hesaplamasında kullanılan bazı terimler üzerine kısa bir değerlendirme ve öneriler. Avrasya Terim Dergisi, 9(3), 51–58. Retrieved January 13, 2026, from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/2022029
2. Arshad, H., & Routray, J. (2018). From socioeconomic disparity to environmental injustice: The relationship between housing unit density and community green space in a medium city in Pakistan. Local Environment, 23, 536–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2018.1442424
3. Astell‐Burt, T., Feng, X., Mavoa, S., Badland, H., & Giles-Corti, B. (2014). Do low-income neighbourhoods have the least green space? A cross-sectional study of Australia’s most populous cities. BMC Public Health, 14, 292. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-292
4. Baycan-Levent, T., & Nijkamp, P. (2009). Planning and management of urban green spaces in Europe: Comparative analysis. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 135(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2009)135:1(1)
5. Başgün, Ö. F. (2025). Afet önleme, afet sonrası etkileri azaltma ve afet yönetimi kapsamında kent parklarının ve açık yeşil alanların planlama ve tasarımı: Elazığ örneği (Doctoral dissertation). Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey. Retrieved from National Thesis Center (YÖKTEZ)
6. Başgün, Ö. F., & Bulut, Y. (2025). Landscape management for disaster-prone cities: disaster resilient park proposal. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 33(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.3846/jeelm.2025.23563
7. Bolkaner, M., & Asilsoy, B. (2023). Reinventing the urban neighborhood green index in the context of urban ecology as a conceptual framework in Northern Nicosia, Cyprus. Sustainability, 15, 13880. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813880
8. Chen, Y., Ge, Y., Yang, G., Wu, Z., Du, Y., Mao, F., Liu, S., Xu, R., Qu, Z., Xu, B., & Chang, J. (2022). Inequalities of urban green space area and ecosystem services along urban center–edge gradients. Landscape and Urban Planning, 217, 104266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104266

9. Csomós, G., Farkas, Z., Kolcsár, R., Szilassi, P., & Kovács, Z. (2021). Measuring socio-economic disparities in green space availability in post-socialist cities. Habitat International, 113, 102434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102434
10. Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği İl Müdürlüğü. (2023). Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemi (CBS) vektör verileri. Retrieved January 12, 2026, from https://cbs.csb.gov.tr/cografi-veri-talep-portali-i-5438
11. Demircan, N., & Başgün, Ö. F. (2022). Elazığ İlinin Avrupa Yeşil Başkent Ödülü Kriterleri Açısından İncelenmesi. ATA Planlama ve Tasarım Dergisi, 6(1), 27-39. https://doi.org/10.5152/ Planarch.2022.220103
12. Doygun, H. (2007). Büyüyen Kentlerde Yeşil Alanların Konumu ve Geleceği: Kahramanmaraş Örneği. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(12), 48-53, Retrieved January 14, 2026, from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/470482
13. EEA (2012). European Environment Agency. Green infrastructure and territorial cohesion: The concept of green infrastructure and its integration into policies using monitoring systems. Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved January 3, 2026, from https://www.eea.europa.eu
14. Elazığ Belediyesi (2018). Elazığ Belediyesi Faaliyet Raporu 2018. Retrieved January 11, 2026, from https://www.elazig.bel.tr/dosya/yayin/ dosyalar/Faaliyet_Raporu_2018.pdf
15. Elazığ Belediyesi. (2025). Arsa metrekare birim değeri sorgulama. E-Devlet Uygulaması. Retrieved November 14, 2025, from https://www.turkiye. gov.tr/elazig-belediyesi-arsa-rayic-degeri-sorgulama-v2
16. Emür, S. H., & Onsekiz, D. (2007). Kentsel yaşam kalitesi bileşenleri arasında açık ve yeşil alanların önemi: Kayseri/Kocasinan ilçesi park alanları analizi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (22), 367–396. Retrieved January 13, 2026, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302976073_Kentsel_Yasam_Kalitesi_Bilesenleri_Arasinda_Acik_Ve_Yesil_Alanlarin_Onemi_-_KayseriKocasinan_Ilcesi_Park_Alanlari_Analizi
17. Gaikadi, S., & Kumar, S. (2024). Is ward-level calculation of urban green space availability important? A case study on Vellore city, India, using the histogram-based spectral discrimination approach. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 6, 1393156. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2024.1393156
18. Giannico, V., Spano, G., Elia, M., D’Este, M., Sanesi, G., & Lafortezza, R. (2021). Green spaces, quality of life, and citizen perception in European cities. Environmental Research, 110922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.110922
19. Guinaudeau, B., Brink, M., Schäffer, B., & Schlaepfer, M. (2023). A methodology for quantifying the spatial distribution and social equity of urban green and blue spaces. Sustainability, 15, 16886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416886
20. Gültekin, E., & Altunkasa, F. (1983). Çukurova Bölgesi’nin üç büyük kentinde çocuk oyun alanlarının fiziksel yönden incelenmesi ve yeterlilikleri üzerinde bir araştırma. Çukurova Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Peyzaj Mimarlığı Bölümü Yıllığı. Retrieved January 13, 2026, from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/turkjforsci/869616.xml
21. Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD 21218, United States of America.
22. Hassan, Y. (2024). A comparative assessment of UGS changes and accessibility using per capita metrics: A case study of Budapest and Vienna. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4864401
23. Herzele, A. V., & Wiedemann, T. (2003). A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63, 109–126. Retrieved January 7, 2026, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169204602001925
24. Jim, C. Y. (2004). Green-space preservation and allocation for sustainable greening of compact cities. Cities, 21(4), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2004.04.004
25. Kabisch, N., Qureshi, S., & Haase, D. (2015). Human–environment interactions in urban green spaces: A systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.08.007
26. Lin, W., Chen, Q., Jiang, M., Zhang, X., Liu, Z., Tao, J., Wu, L., Xu, S., Kang, Y., & Zeng, Q. (2019). The effect of green space behaviour and per capita area in small urban green spaces on psychophysiological responses. Landscape and Urban Planning, 192, 103637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103637
27. Logan, J. R., & Molotch, H. L. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. University of California Press. California, United States of America.
28. MPYY. (2014). Mekânsal Planlar Yapım Yönetmeliği, Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. Resmî Gazete (Sayı: 29030). Retrieved January 10, 2026, from https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=19788&MevzuatTur=7&MevzuatTertip=5
29. Moseley, D., Marzano, M., Chetcuti, J., & Watts, K. (2013). Green networks for people: Application of a functional approach to support the planning and management of greenspace. Landscape and Urban Planning, 116, 1–12. Retrieved January 7, 2026, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169204613000650
30. Nesbitt, L., Meitner, M. J., Girling, C., Sheppard, S. R. J., & Lu, Y. (2019). Who has access to urban vegetation? A spatial analysis of distributional green equity in 10 U.S. cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 181, 51–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.007
31. Öztan, Y. (1968). Ankara şehri ve çevresi yeşil saha sisteminin peyzaj mimarisi prensipleri yönünden etüd ve tayini. Ankara Üniversitesi Basimevi. Ankara, Turkey.
32. Pang, B., Zhao, J., Zhang, J., & Yang, L. (2023). Calculating optimal scale of urban green space in Xi’an, China. Ecological Indicators, 110003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110003
33. Pouya, S., & Aghlmand, M. (2022). Evaluation of urban green space per capita with new remote sensing and geographic information system techniques and the importance of urban green space during the COVID-19 pandemic. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 194(9), 633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10298-z
34. Rigolon, A. (2016). A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 153, 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.017
35. Schindler, M., Texier, M., & Caruso, G. (2022). How far do people travel to use urban green space? A comparison of three European cities. Applied Geography, 102673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2022.102673
36. Smith, N. (2002). New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrification as global urban strategy. Antipode, 34(3), 427–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00249
37. Tian, Y., Van Leeuwen, E., Tsendbazar, N., Jing, C., & Herold, M. (2024). Urban green inequality and its mismatches with human demand across neighborhoods in New York, Amsterdam, and Beijing. Landscape Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-01874-4
38. TÜİK. (2024). Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi (ADNKS) Sonuçları – 2024. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. Retrieved January 2, 2026, from https://data.tuik.gov.tr
39. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemelä, J., & James, P. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan. 2007.02.001
40. Ünal, M. (2014). Aktif yeşil alanların rekreasyonel hizmet etkinliğinin saptanması: Çukurova ilçesi örneği (Master’s thesis). Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey. Retrieved from National Thesis Center (YÖKTEZ)
41. Unal, M., & Uslu, C. (2018). Evaluating and optimizing urban green spaces for compact urban areas: Cukurova District in Adana, Turkey. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 7(2), 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7020070
42. Unal Cilek, M., Altunkasa, M. F., & Uslu, C. (2024). Urban residents' attitudes towards the impact of public spaces on urban life quality: The case of Adana. Open House International, 49(2), 222–243. https:// doi.org/10.1108/OHI-01-2023-0007
43. Unal, M., & Cevik, M. B. (2025). Playground quality assessment with weighted criteria method: Elazığ Culture Park case. Child Indicators Research, 18, 1549–1580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-025-10262-6
44. Uzun, G. (1974). Adana Şehri ve Yakın Çevresinin Peyzaj Mimarisi Yönünden Sorunlarının Saptanması ve Çözüm Yolları Üzerine Bir Araştırma. ÇÜ Ziraat Fakültesi Peyzaj Mimarisi Kürsüsü, Adana, Turkey.
45. Verma, P., Singh, R., Bryant, C., & Raghubanshi, A. (2020). Green space indicators in a social-ecological system: A case study of Varanasi, India. Sustainable Cities and Society, 60, 102261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102261
46. Viinikka, A., Tiitu, M., Heikinheimo, V., Halonen, J., Nyberg, E., & Vierikko, K. (2023). Associations of neighborhood-level socioeconomic status, accessibility, and quality of green spaces in Finnish urban regions. Applied Geography, 102973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.102973
47. Wright Wendel, H. E., Zarger, E. K., & Mihelcic, J. R. (2012). Accessibility and usability: Green space preferences, perceptions, and barriers in a rapidly urbanizing city in Latin America. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107, 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.003
48. Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough.” Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017
49. WHO (2012). World Health Organization, Health indicators of sustainable cities in the context of the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development. WHO. Retrieved January 2, 2026, from https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/environment-climate-change-and-health/sustainable-development-indicator-cities.pdf?sfvrsn=c005156b_2
50. Wu, L., & Kim, S. (2020). Exploring the equality of accessing urban green spaces: A comparative study of 341 Chinese cities. Ecological Indicators, 107080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107080
51. Yin, H., & Xu, J. (2009). Measuring the accessibility of parks: A case study in Shanghai, China. In Sixth International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (Shanghai, China). Doi: 10.1109/FSKD.2009.583
52. Yukhnovskyi, V., & Zibtseva, O. (2019). Normalization of green space as a component of ecological stability of a town. Journal of Forest Science, 2019-85. https://doi.org/10.17221/85/2019-JFS
53. Zhang, Y., Van den Berg, A., Van Dijk, T., & Weitkamp, G. (2017). Quality over quantity: Contribution of urban green space to neighborhood satisfaction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14050535
54. Zhou, K., Gong, Y., Sun, Y., & Lee, T. (2025). Creating sustainable neighbourhoods in cities: Greener neighbourhoods could promote residents’ pro-environmental recycling behaviour. Landscape Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-02009-5