THE CHANGE IN THE CONCEPT OF SCHOOL GARDEN LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND THE STUDY OF THE REFLECTIONS OF THIS CHANGE ON APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF BARTIN CITY

Öz

Children spend most of the day at school. School gardens, which are important parts of schools, are the places that contribute to physical and mental development of children and their social relations. At present, a lot of scholars carry out studies emphasizing the multi-directional effect on the healthy development of the child of school/break gardens which are transformed thanks to constructural-plant landscape applications involving pedagogical and ecological approaches in line with the demands and needs of children. In this study, the existing situation of school gardens is studied in the case of the schools in the city centre of Bartın. Recommendations are made regarding the process design along with constructural-plant landscape applications in which the children are involved in order to make the school/break gardens a part of education in the issues of learning through experience and similar topics. Keywords: School/break garden, 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• School/break garden,primary school,Bartın,constructural and plant landscape applications

OKUL BAHÇESİ PEYZAJ TASARIM ANLAYIŞINDAKİ DEĞİŞİM VE BU DEĞİŞİMİN UYGULAMAYA YANSIMALARININ BARTIN KENTİ ÖRNEĞİNDE İRDELENMESİ

Öz

Çocuklar günlük yaşamın büyük bir bölümünü okulda geçirmektedirler. Okulun önemli bir parçası olan okul bahçeler ise çocukların fiziksel, zihinsel gelişimi ile sosyal ilişkilerinin sağlıklı bir biçimde gelişimine katkısı olan önemli mekanlardır. Günümüzde pek çok araştırmacı, çocukların istek ve gereksinimlerine göre, pedagojik ve ekolojik yaklaşımlarla dönüşüm geçiren okul/teneffüs bahçelerinin, çocuğun sağlıklı gelişimindeki çok yönlü etkisini vurgulayan çalışmalar yürütmektedir. Bu çalışmada, Bartın Merkez Đlçesi’nde bulunan okullar örneğinde, okul bahçelerinin mevcut durumları incelenmiştir. Okul/teneffüs bahçelerinin; çocuğun yaşayarak öğrenmesinin sağlanması ve benzeri konularda eğitimin bir parçası haline getirilmesi için çocuğun katılımının sağlandığı yapısal bitkisel peyzaj uygulamaları yanı sıra süreç tasarımına ilişkin öneriler sunulmuştur. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Okul bahçesi/teneffüs bahçesi,ilköğretim okulu,Bartın,yapısal ve bitkisel peyzaj uygulamaları

Kaynakça

1. Adamowicz, W. L., Bhardwaj, V. and Macnab, B. 1993. Experiments on the Difference between Willingness To Pay and Willingness To Accept. Land Economics. 69, 416-27.
2. Ajzen, I., Brown, T. C. and Rosenthal, L. H. 1996. Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation. J. Env. Econ. and Man. 30, 43-57.
3. Alp, E. 1999. Non-Market Valuation of Environmental Damage: A Case Study on Yusufeli Dam and Hydroelectric Power Plant. ODTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Msc Thesis, 101 s.
4. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R. and Schuman, H. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register, 58(10), 4601-4614.
5. Ateşoğlu, İ. 2008. Bartın Balamba Orman içi Dinlenme Yeri Rekreasyon Hizmetlerinin Ekonomik Değerinin Belirlenmesi. Zonguldak Karaelmas Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
6. Bateman, I. J., Willis, K. G., Garrod, G. D., Doctor, P., Langford, I. and Turner, R. K. 1992. Recreation and Environmental Preservation Value of the Norfolk Broads: A Contingent Valuation Study. Report to The National Rivers Authority, Environmental Appraisal Group, University of East Anglia, p. 403.
7. Bergstrom, J., Dillman, B. L., and Stoll, J. R. 1985. Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics. 17, 139-150.
8. Bergstrom, J. C., Stoll, J. R. and Randall, A. 1990. The Impact of Information on Environmental Commodity Valuation Decisions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 72, 614-21.

9. Bishop, R. C., Heberlein, T. A., Welsh, M. P. and Baumgartner, R. M. 1984. Does Contingent Valuation Work? Results of the Sandhill Experiments. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of The American Agricultural Economics Association. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
10. Bowen, H.R. 1943. The İnterpretation of Voting in the Allocation of Economic Resources. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 58, 27-48.
11. Boyle, K. 1989. Commodity Valuation and the Specification of Contingent Valuation Questions. Land Economics. 55, 57-63.
12. Boyle, K., Reiling, S. and Philips, M. 1991. Species Substitution and Question Sequencing in Contingent Valuation Surveys. Leisure Sciences. 12, 103-113.
13. Boyle, K. J., Welsh, M. P. and Bishop, R. C. 1993. The Role of Question Order and Respondent Experience in Contingent Valuation Studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 95, S80-90.
14. Boyle, K. J. 2003. Contingent Valuation in Practice. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle and T. C. Brown (Eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, 111-170.
15. Brookshire, D. S., Ives, B. and Schulze, W. 1976. The Valuation of Aesthetic Preferences. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 3(4), 325-346.
16. Brookshire, D. S. and Randall, A. 1979. Experiments in Valuing Wildlife Services. Report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. RM-102, University of Wyoming, Laramie.
17. Brookshire, D. S., Thayer, M. A., Schulze, W. D. and D’arge, R. C. 1982. Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches. American Economic Review. 72, 165-177.
18. Carson, R. T., Mitcell, R. C., Hanemann, V. M., Kopp, R. J., Presser, S. and Ruud, A. 1992. A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting from Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc., Report to the Attorney General of the State of Alaska, Washington, D.C.
19. Carson, T. and Mitchell, R. C. 1993. The Issue of Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 75(5), 1263-1267.
20. Carson, R. T., Wright, J., Alberini, A., Carson, N. and Flores, N. 1994. A Bibliography of Contingent Valuation Studies and Papers. Natural Resources Damage Assessment Inc., CA.
21. Carson, R. T. and Mitchell, R. C. 1995. Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 28, 155-173.
22. Carson, R. T. 1997. Contingent Valuation Surveys and Tests of Insensitivity to Scope. Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods, R. J. Kopp, W. Pommerhene and N. Schwartz (Eds.), Kluwer Publishers, Boston, 127–163.
23. Carson, R. T. 2000. Contingent Valuation: A User’s Guide. Env. Science and Technology. 34, 1413-1418.
24. Carson, R. T. and Hanemann, W. M. 2005. Contingent Valuation. Handbook of Environmental Economics: Valuing Environmental Changes (Eds. K. G. Maler and J. R. Vincent), Vol. 2, 821-936, First edition. North- Holland Press, Amsterdam.
25. Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. 1947. Capital returns from soil conservation practices. J. Farm Economics. 29, 1181-96.
26. Cummings, R., Brookshire, D. and Schulze, W. 1986. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of The Contingent Valuation Method. Rowman and Allanheld Press, Totowa.
27. Czajkowski, M. and Hanley, N. 2008. How to ‘Sell’ an Environmental Good: Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects. Stirling Economics Discussion Paper. 2008 (16).
28. Daubert, J. T. and Young, R. A. 1981. Recreational Demands For Maintaining Instream Flows: A Contingent Valuation Approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 63, 666-676.
29. Davis, R. 1963. Recreation Planning As An Economic Problem. Natural Resources Journal. 3(2), 239-249.
30. Desvousges, W. H., Johnson, F. R., Dunford, R. W., Boyle, K. J., Hudson, S. P. and Wilson, N. 1993. Measuring Natural Resource Damages with Contingent Valuation: Tests of Validity and Reliability. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. J. A. Hausman (Ed.). North Holland Press, 91-159.
31. Diamond, P. A., Hausman, J. A., Leonard, G. K. and Denning, M. A. 1993. Does Contingent Valuation Measure Preferences? Some Empirical Evidence. Contingent Valuation. North Holland Press.
32. Diamond, P. A. and Hausman, J. A. 1993. On Contingent Valuation Measurement of Non-Use Values. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. J. A. Hausman (Ed.). North Holland Press, 3-38.
33. Diamond, P. A. and Hausman, J. A. 1994. Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number?. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8, 45–64.
34. Diamond, P. A. 1996. Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 30, 337-347.
35. Dickie, M., Fisher, A. and Gerking, S. 1987. Market Transactions and Hypothetical Demand Data: A Comparative Study. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 82, 69-75.
36. Elsasser, P. 1996. Recreational Benefits of Forests in Germany. Proceedings of International Symposium on the Non-Market Benefits of Forests, Edinburgh.
37. Fisher, A., Mcclelland, G. H. and Schulze, W. D. 1988. Measures of Willingness to Pay vs. Willingness to Accept: Evidence, Explorations and Potential Reconciliation. Amenity Resource Valuation: Integrating Economics with Other Disciplines, Venture Publishing, 127-134.
38. Fisher, A. C. 1996. The Conceptual Underpinnings of the Contingent Valuation Method. The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources, Edward Elgar Pub. Ltd., Cheltenham, 19-37.
39. Georgiou, S., Whittington, D., Pearce, D. and Moran, D. 1997. Economic Values and the Environment in the Developing World. Edward Elgar Publications, Cheltenham.
40. Gökşen, F., Adaman, F. and Zenginobuz, U., 2002. On Environmental Concern, Willingness To Pay, and Postmaterialist Values: Evidence From Istanbul. Environment and Behavior. 34 (5), 460–477.
41. Greenly, D. A., Walsh, R. C. and Young, R. A. 1981. Option Value: Empirical Evidence from a Case Study of Recreation and Water Quality. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 96, p. 657-673.
42. Gürlük, S. 2002. The Misi Rural Development Project and Area’s Recreational Value Based on Contingent Valuation Method, Doğus University Journal. 6, Temmuz 2002, 51-60.
43. Hammitt, J. K. and Graham, J. D. 1999. Willingness to Pay for Health Protection: Inadequate Sensitivity to Probability?, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 18, 33-62.
44. Hanemann, M. W. 1994. Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8, 19-43.
45. Hanemann, W. M. 1996. Theory vs. Data in the Contingent Valuation Debate. The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs. Edward Elgar Pub. Ltd., Cheltenham, 38-60.
46. Hanley, N. 1989. Valuing Rural Recreation Benefits: An Empirical Comparison of Two Approaches. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 40, 361-374.
47. Hanley, N. and Spash, C. 1993. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Edward Elgar Pub. Ltd., Aldershot.
48. Hanley, N. and Munro, A. 1994. The Effects of Information in Contingent Markets for Environmental Goods. Discussion Papers in Ecological Economics, University of Stirling. 94 (5).
49. Hanley, N., Shogren, J. F. and White, B. 1996. Environmental Economics in Theory and Practice. Macmillan Ltd., London.
50. Hausman, J. A. 1993. Contingent valuation: A Critical Assessment. North Holland.
51. Heberlein, T. A. and Bishop, R. C. 1985. Assessing the Validity of Contingent Valuation: Three Field Experiments. Unpublished Manuscripts. University of Wisconsin, Madison.
52. Hoehn, J. and Randall, A. 1987. A Satisfactory Benefit Cost Indicator from Contingent Valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 14 (3), 226-247.
53. Hoehn, J. P. and Swanson, C. S. 1988. Toward A Satisfactory Model of Contingent Valuation Behaviour in a Policy Context. Amenity Resource Valuation. Venture Pub. Inc., 149-158.
54. İşgüden, T. 1980. Kamu Yatırım Projelerinin Değerlendirilmesinde Fayda-Maliyet Analizi. İ.İ.T.İ.A. Yayınları, 319(852), Sermet Matbaası, İstanbul.
55. Kahneman, D. 1986. Comments. Valuing Environmental Goods, Rowman and Allanheld Pub., Totowa, NJ.
56. Kahneman, D. and Knetsch, J. L. 1992. Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22 (1), 57-70.
57. Karlı, B., Bilgiç, A. and Miran, B. 2008. Consumers’ Perceptions About Genetically Modified Foods and Their Ststed Eillingness To Pay for Genetically Modified Food Labeling: Evidences From Turkey. Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting Dallas, TX, February 2-6,2008.
58. Kaya, G., Daşdemir, İ. ve Akça, Y. 2000. Soğuksu Milli Parkının Ekonomik Değerinin Belirlenmesi. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 1-2, 59-87.
59. Kaya, G. 2002a. Pazarı Olmayan Ürünler Çerçevesinde Orman Kaynaklarının Değerinin Belirlenmesi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Fen Bil. Enst. Orman Müh. Anabilim Dalı Ormancılık Ekonomisi Programı, 279 s., İstanbul.
60. Kaya, G. 2002b Türkiye’de Av Ve Yaban Hayatı Kaynaklarını Koruma Ve Avcılığın Ekonomik Değerinin Belirlenmesiyle İlgili Problemler: Bartın Örneğinden Çıkarılan Dersler. Yayınlanmamış Araştırma Raporu.
61. Kaya, G., Aytekin, A. Yıldız, Y. ve Şaltu Z. 2009a. Bartın İlinde Yaban Hayatı Kaynaklarını Korumanın ve Avlanma Hizmetinin Ekonomik Değerinin Belirlenmesi. TÜBİTAK 107O072 Projesi Sonuç Raporu.
62. Kaya, G., Yıldız, Y., Şaltu, Z., Yaman, F. ve Ateşoğlu, İ. 2009b. Koşullu Değer Belirleme Çalışmalarında Bilgi Kısıtının Aşılması İçin Bir Öneri: Yaban Hayatının Ekonomik Değerinin Belirlenmesi Örneği. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 11 (16), 45-59.
63. Kaya, G. 2010. Türkiye’de Çevresel Değer Belirleme Araştırmaları, Darboğazlar Ve Öneriler (Poster bildiri.) Ekoloji 2010 Sempozyumu, 5-7 Mayıs 2010, s. 194. Aksaray.
64. Kumbaroğlu, G., Korugan, A., Demirel, M., Güleç Ü., Karali, N. ve Sarıca, K. 2007. Türkiye için Sürdürülebilir Temiz Kalkınma Olanaklarının Araştırılması: Yenilenebilir Enerji Teknolojilerinin Yaygınlaşmasına Yönelik Projeksiyonların Oluşturulması ve Alternatif Temiz Kalkınma Projelerinin Geliştirilmesi. TÜBİTAK Proje Sonuç Raporu, 104M291.
65. Loomis, J. B., Gonzalez-Caban, A. and Gregory, R. 1994. Do Remainders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates?. Land Economics. 70. 499-506.
66. Milon, J. 1989. Contingent Valuation Experiments for Strategic Behaviour. J. Env. Econ. and Man. 17, 293-308.
67. Mitchell, R. C. and Carson, R. T. 1981. An Experiment in Determining Willingness to Pay for National Water Quality Improvements. Draft Report, Resource for the Future, Washington, DC.
68. Mitchell, R. and Carson, R. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Resource for the Future, Washington, DC.
69. Moran, D. and Pearce, D. 2000. Handbook On The Applied Valuation of Biological Diversity. UNCTAD, No. ENV/EFOR/GEEI/BIO (2000)2.
70. Munro, A. and Hanley, N. 1999. Information, Uncertainity and Contingent Valuation. Contingent Valuation of Environmental Preferences: Assessing Theory and Practice in the USA, Europe and Developing Countries. I. J. Bateman and K. G. Willis (Eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
71. Neill, H. R. 1995. The Context For Substitutes İn CVM Studies: Some Empirical Observations. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 29, 393-397.
72. Ortaçeşme, V., Özkan, B., Karagüzel, O., Atik, M. ve Akpınar, M. G. 1999. Kurşunlu Şelalesi Tabiat Parkının Ekonomik Değerinin Saptanması. TARP-2152 TÜBİTAK Projesi Sonuç Raporu, Antalya.
73. Pak, M. 2003. Orman Kaynağından Rekreasyon Amaçlı Yararlanmanın Ekonomik Değerinin Tahmin Edilmesi ve Bu Değer Üzerinde Etkili Olan Değişkenler Üzerine Bir Araştırma (Doğu Akdeniz ve Doğu Karadeniz Bölgesi Orman İçi Dinlenme Yerleri Örneği), Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Basılmamış Doktora Tezi.
74. Pearce, D. W. and Turner, R. K. 1990. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf Press, New York.
75. Pehlivanoğlu, N. 2010. Bartın Irmağında Su Kalitesinin İyileştirilmesinin Ekonomik Değerinin Belirlenmesi. Bartın Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
76. Randall, A., Hoehn, J. P. and Tolley, G. S. 1981. The Structure of Contingent Markets. Proceedings of Annual Meeting of The American Economic Association, Washington, D. C.
77. Randall, A., Blomquist, G. C., Hoehn, J. P. and Stoll, J. R. 1985. National Aggregate Benefits of Air and Water Pollution Control. Report for US Environmental Protection Agency, No. 85-027, Washington, D. C.
78. Randall, A. and Hoehn, J. P. 1996. Embedding In Market Demand System. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.30, 369-380.
79. Rowe, R. D., D’Arge, R. C. and Brookshire, D. S. 1980. An Experiment on the Economic Value of Visibility. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 7, 1-19.
80. Samples, K. C., Hollyer, J. R. 1990. Contingent Valuation of Wildlife Resources In the Presence Of Substitutes and Complements. Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: Issues, Theory and Application. R. L. Johnson and G. V. Johnson (Eds.). Westview Press, Boulder, 177-192.
81. Samples, K., Dixon, J. and Gower, M. 1986. Information Disclosure and Endangered Species Valuation. Land Economics, 62, 306-312.
82. Samuelson, P. 1954. The pure theory of public expenditures. Review of Economics and Statistics 36, 387–389.
83. Sloviç, P. 1969. Differential Effects of Real Versus Hypothetical Pay offs on Choices among Gambles. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 80, 434-437.
84. Smith, V. L. 1980. Experiments With A Decentralized Mechanism for Public Goods Decisions. American Economic Review. 70, 584-599.
85. Smith, V. K. 1992. Arbitrary Values, Good Causes and Premature Verdicts. Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics. 22(1), 71-89.
86. Thayer, M. A. 1981. Contingent Valuation Techniques for Assessing Environmental Impacts: Further Evidence. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 8, 27-44.
87. Tolley, G. A., Randall, A., Blomquist, G.C., Fabian, R., Fishelson, G., Frankel, A., Hoehn, J. P, Krum, R. and Mensah, E. 1984. Establishing and Valuing the Effects of Improved Visibility in The Eastern United States. Report for US Environmental Protection Agency, 84-013, University of Chicago, Chicago.
88. Tümay, A. 2005. Benefit analysis: Approach as a Tool for Sustainable Management: A Case Study in Köyceğiz Dalyan Watershed. İTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora tezi.
89. Uslu, C. 2002 Adana Sofulu Çöp Depolama Alanı Örneğinde Faaliyet Sonrası Alternatif Kullanımların Toplumsal Fayda Ve Maliyet Değerlendirmeleri. Çukurova Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Basılmamış Doktora Tezi.
90. U. S. Water Resources Council 1983. Economic and Environmental Principles for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. U. S. Government Printing Office, Federal Register 10259. Washington, DC.
91. Venkatachalam, L. 2004. The Contingent Valuation Method: A Review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 24, 89-124.
92. Walsh, R. G. 1986. Recreation Economic Decisions: Comparing Benefits and Costs. Venture Publishing Inc., Pennsylvania.
93. Whitehead, J. and Blomquist, G. 1991. Measuring Contingent Values for Wetlands: Effects of Information about Related Environmental Goods. Water Resources Research. 27, 2523-2531.
94. Zenginobuz, Ü., Kumbaroğlu, G.,, Özkaynak, B. ve Karalı, N. 2008. Türkiye’de Karbondioksit Emisyonunun Azaltılmasına Yönelik Hanehalkı Ödeme İstekliliğinin Belirlenmesi. TÜBİTAK Araştırma Projesi Sonuç Raporu, SOBAG-105K234. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 2008.