Evaluating the Effective Architectural Factors Enhancing Sense of Vitality in Urban Spaces

Öz

Urban spaces play a vital role in fostering social interactions among individuals, as they require both vitality and comfort for sustenance. These environments serve as a foundation for social and political engagement while facilitating the creation of memories and the expression of collective sentiments. The present study aims to investigate the effective relationship between architectural physical features and residents' sense of vitality, particularly in urban green areas. In this context, key variables that enhance users' sense of vitality are identified, and the relationship between these components and the sub-factors of architectural physical characteristics is analyzed through the case study of Konya Culture Park. A survey was conducted, with the statistical population determined using a purposive non-probability sampling method. The results indicate that physical factors, with a value of 0.87, surpass functional factors (0.83), social factors (0.79), and cognitive factors (0.76) in enhancing the sense of vitality among park users. Based on the findings, architects and urban planners should prioritize form, texture, diverse materials, water features such as fountains and ponds, landscaping, varied pathways, accessibility, and cleanliness as the most significant physical factors to improve citizens' sense of vitality.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Architectural factors
• Sense of vitality
• Urban parks
• Public spaces.

Kentsel Alanlarda Canlılık Hissini Artıran Etkili Mimari Faktörlerin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Kentsel alanlar, sosyal etkileşim için çok önemlidir çünkü insanlar hayatta kalmak için canlılık ve konfora ihtiyaç duyar. Kentsel alanların oluşumu toplumsal duyguların paylaşılmasına olanak tanır. Bu araştırma, mimarinin fiziksel özellikleri ile kentsel alanlarda yaşayan insanların canlılık hissi arasındaki etkili ilişkiyi incelemektedir. Bu bağlamda, kullanıcıların canlılık duygusunu artırmada etkili olan bileşenler belirlenmiştir ve Konya Kültür Parkı örneği üzerinden bu bileşenlerin mimarinin fiziksel boyutunu oluşturan alt faktörlerle ilişkisi incelenmiştir. Katılımcılar olasılıksız örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. Veriler anket kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Sonuçlar, park kullanıcılarının işlevsel faktörlerden (0.83), sosyal faktörlerden (0.79) ve bilişsel faktörlerden (0.76) daha fazla canlılık hissi geliştirdiğini göstermektedir. Bulgulara göre, mimarlar ve şehir planlamacıları, vatandaşların canlılık hissini geliştirmek için en önemli fiziksel faktörler olarak biçim, doku, farklı malzemeler, çeşmeler, göletler, bitkilendirme, farklı yürüyüş yolları, erişilebilirlik ve temizliğe odaklanmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mimari faktörler
• Canlılık hissi
• Kentsel parklar
• Kamusal alanlar

Kaynakça

1. Abdul Latip, N. S., Shamsudin, S. and Liew, M. S. (2012). Functional dimension at Kuala Lumpur Waterfront. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 147-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.07.013
2. Barber, A., Haase, D. and Wolff, M. (2021). Permeability of the city – physical barriers of and in urban green spaces in the city of Halle, Germany. Ecological Indicators, 125, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107555
3. Bishop, P. and Williams, L. (2012). The Temporary City. London: Routledge: London.
4. Brown, G. (2008). A theory of urban park geography. Journal of Leisure Research, 40(4), 589–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2008.11950154
5. Chen, Y., Liu, T., Xie, X. and Marušić, B. G. (2016). What attracts people to visit community open spaces? A case study of the overseas Chinese Town community in Shenzhen, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(7), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13070644
6. Cowan, R. (2005). The dictionary of urbanism. New York: Streetwise Press.
7. Fang, C., He, S. and Wang, L. (2021). Spatial characterization of urban vitality and the association with various street network metrics from the multi-scalar perspective. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.677910
8. Gehl, J. and Svarre, B. (2013). How to Study Public Life. Washington, DC: Island Press.

9. Guo, X., Chen, H. and Yang, X. (2021). An evaluation of street dynamic vitality and its influential factors based on multi-source big data. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(3), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10030143
10. Haas, T. and Mehaffy, M.W. (2019). Introduction: the future of public space. Urban Design International, 24, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-018-0062-3
11. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed). New York: Pearson.
12. Ibes, D.C. (2015). A multi-dimensional classification and equity analysis of an urban park system: A novel methodology and case study application. Landscape and Urban Planning, 137, 122-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.12.014
13. Isabella, D. M., Claudia, B., Giulia, C. M., Alessandro, C. and Alessandro, P. (2022). Citizens’ use of public urban green spaces at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 77, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127739
14. Istrate, A. L. and Chen, F. (2022). Liveable streets in Shanghai: Definition, characteristics and design. Progress in Planning, 158, 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2021.100544
15. Jabareen, Y. and Eizenberg, E. (2021). Theorizing urban social spaces and their interrelations: New perspectives on urban sociology, politics, and planning. Planning Theory, 20(3), 211-230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220976942
16. Khemri, M. Y. and Melis, A. (2020). Sustaining the liveliness of public spaces in El Houma through placemaking. The case of Algiers. The Journal of Public Space, 5(1), 129-152. https://doi.org/10.32891/jps.v5i1.1254
17. Kushner, J. (2020). The life and death of great cities in the time of climate change and the Covid-19 Pandemic. Journal of Comparative Urban Law and Policy, 4(1), 130-220. https://doi.org/readingroom.law.gsu.edu/jculp/vol4/iss1/16
18. Li, X., Kozlowski, M., Salih, S.A. and Ismail, S.B. (2024), Evaluating the vitality of urban public spaces: perspectives on crowd activity and built environment. Archnet-IJAR: international Journal ofArchitectural Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-01-2024-0009
19. Li, J., Dang, A. and Song, Y. (2022). Defining the ideal public space: A perspective from the publicness. Journal of Urban Management, 11(4), 479-487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2022.08.005.
20. Liu, G., Lei, J., Qin, H., Niu, J., Chen, J., Lu, J. and Han, G. (2023). Impact of environmental comfort on urban vitality in small and medium-sized cities: A case study of Wuxi County in Chongqing, China. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1131630
21. Lynch, K. (1984). Good city form. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
22. McGlynn, S. (1985). Responsive environments. London: Routledge.
23. Mehta, V. and Bosson, J.K. (2018). Revisiting lively street: Social interactions in public space. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 41(2), 160-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X18781453
24. Mitchell, D. (1996). Introduction: Public space and the city. Urban Geography, 17(2), 127–131. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.17.2.127
25. Mouratidis, K. and Poortinga, W. (2020). Built environment, urban vitality and social cohesion: Do vibrant neighborhoods foster strong communities?. Landscape and Urban Planning, 204, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103951.
26. Mushkani, R. A. and Ono, H. (2021). The role of land use and vitality in fostering gender equality in urban public parks: The case of Kabul city, Afghanistan. Habitat International, 118, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102462
27. Prakash, R. S., Voss, M. W., Erickson, K. I. and Kramer, A. F. (2015). Physical activity and cognitive vitality. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 769-797. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015249
28. Paumier, C. (2007). Creating a vibrant city center. Washington D.C.: (ULI) Urban Land Institute.
29. Ramlee, M., Omar, D., Yunus, R. M. and Samadi, Z. (2018). Attributes of successful public spaces through users perception. Asian Journal of Quality of Life, 3(11), 21-28. https://doi.org/10.21834/ajqol.v3i11.118
30. Ren, Yi. and Yang, Q. (2023). Research on the factors influencing the perception of urban park recreational behavior based on the “Homo Urbanicus” Theory. Sustainability, 15(8), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086525
31. Rofe, Y. (1995). Space and community - The spatial foundations of urban neighborhoods: An evaluation of three theories of urban form and social structure and their relevance to the issue of neighborhoods. Berkeley Planning Journal, 10(1), 107-125. https://doi.org/10.5070/BP310113064
32. Ruszczyk, H. A., Halligey, A., Rahman, M. F. and Ahmed, I. (2023). Liveability and vitality: an exploration of small cities in Bangladesh. Cities, 133, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.104150
33. Relph, E. (2022). Place & placelessness (Research in planning and design), London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
34. Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Boston: MA: Pearson.
35. Tzonis, A. (2006). Rethinking Design Methodology for Sustainable Social Quality. Ong. (Ed.), in Tropical Sustainable Architecture: Social and environmental dimensions. Oxford: Architectural Press.
36. Ujang, N. (2012). Place attachment and continuity of urban identity. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 156-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.07.014
37. Van den Berg, M., Van Poppel, M., Van Kamp, I., Andrusaityte, S., Balseviciene, B., Cirach, M., Danileviciute, A., Ellis, N., Hurst, G., Masterson, D., Smith, G., Triguero-Mas, M., Uzdanaviciute, I., De Wit, P., Van Mechelen, W., Gidlow, C., Grazuleviciene, R., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Kruize, H. and Maas, J. (2016). Visiting green space is associated with mental health and vitality: A cross-sectional study in four European cities. Health & Place, 38, 8-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.01.003
38. Visser, V., Van Popering-Verkerk, J., Ellen, M. and Van Buuren, A. (2023). Unleashing or domesticating the vitality of citizens' initiatives? The paradoxical relationship between governments and citizens' initiatives in the energy transition. Cities, 137, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104300
39. Williams, S. A., and Hipp, J. R. (2019). How great and how good?: Third places, neighbor interaction, and cohesion in the neighborhood context. Social Science Research. 77, 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.10.008
40. Yuan, M. and Chen, Y. (2021), Analysis of factors influencing street vitality in high-density residential areas based on multi-source data: a case study of Shanghai, International Journal of High-Rise Buildings, 10(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.21022/IJHRB.2021.10.1.1.
41. Zhang, J., Zhou, W., Lian, H. and Hu, R. (2024). Research on optimization strategy of commercial street spatial vitality based on pedestrian trajectories. Buildings, 14(5), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14051240
42. Zhu, J., Lu, H., Zheng, T., Rong, Y., Wang, C., Zhang, W., Yan, Y. and Tang, L. (2020). Vitality of urban parks and its influencing factors from the perspective of recreational service supply, demand, and spatial links. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051615