Yürünebilirliğin çok boyutlu yapısı: Kuramsal temeller, ilkeler ve kent planlama ilişkisi

Öz

Bu çalışma, yürünebilirlik kavramını çok boyutlu bir bakış açısıyla inceleyerek, kentsel tasarım, planlama ve ulaşım disiplinleri arasındaki ilişkiler bağlamında kapsamlı bir kuramsal değerlendirme sunmaktadır. Yürünebilirlik, bireylerin güvenli, erişilebilir, konforlu ve estetik yaya ortamlarında hareket edebilmesini sağlayan çok disiplinli bir yaklaşımla ele alınmıştır. Literatür taramasında, yürünebilirliğin ulaşım literatüründe işlevsel, kentsel tasarım ve planlama literatüründe ise niteliksel yönleriyle ele alındığı belirtilmiştir. Kavramın fiziksel, algısal ve bireysel faktörlerle şekillendiği; bu faktörlerin yaya deneyimi üzerindeki etkileri detaylandırılmıştır. Çalışmada yürünebilirlik ilkeleri altı başlık altında toplanmıştır: Bütünlük ve denge, süreklilik ve yönlendirme, güvenlik ve rahatlık, sosyallik, erişilebilirlik ve etkinlik ile çekicilik. Her bir ilkenin, kentsel çevrenin niteliksel özellikleriyle ilişkisi açıklanmıştır. Yürünebilirliğin ekonomik, çevresel ve sosyal faydaları çeşitli araştırmalar ışığında değerlendirilmiş; fiziksel aktivitenin artması, ulaşım maliyetlerinin düşmesi ve toplumsal etkileşimin güçlenmesi gibi etkiler öne çıkarılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, yürünebilirlik, sürdürülebilir kent hedefleri, halk sağlığı, sosyal eşitlik ve ekonomik gelişim açısından temel bir araç olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Bu bağlamda, çalışmanın amacı, yürünebilirliği yalnızca fiziksel altyapı değil, aynı zamanda sosyal bütünlük ve mekânsal kalite ile ilişkilendiren bütüncül bir çerçeve sunmaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kentsel Tasarım
• Yürünebilirlik
• Sürdürülebilir Ulaşım
• Yaya Erişilebilirliği
• Halk Sağlığı

The multidimensional structure of walkability: Theoretical foundations, principles and the relationship with urban planning

Öz

This study examines the concept of walkability from a multidimensional perspective and presents a comprehensive theoretical evaluation in the context of the relationships between urban design, planning and transportation disciplines. Walkability is addressed with a multidisciplinary approach that enables individuals to move in safe, accessible, comfortable and aesthetic pedestrian environments. In the literature review, it is stated that walkability is addressed functionally in the transportation literature and qualitatively in the urban design and planning literature. The concept is shaped by physical, perceptual and individual factors; the effects of these factors on the pedestrian experience are detailed. In the study, the principles of walkability are grouped under six headings: Integrity and balance, continuity and orientation, safety and comfort, sociability, accessibility, efficiency and attractiveness. The relationship between each principle and the qualitative characteristics of the urban environment is explained. The economic, environmental and social benefits of walkability are evaluated in the light of various studies, highlighting impacts such as increased physical activity, reduced transportation costs and enhanced social interaction. As a result, walkability is considered as a fundamental tool for sustainable urban goals, public health, social equity and economic development. In this context, the study aims to present a holistic framework that links walkability not only to physical infrastructure, but also to social cohesion and spatial quality.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Urban Design
• Walkability
• Sustainable Transport
• Pedestrian Accessibility
• Public Health

Kaynakça

1. K. Dovey and E. Pafka, “What is walkability? The urban DMA,” Urban Studies, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 93–108, 2020, doi: 10.1177/0042098018819727.
2. M. K. Argun, “Türkiye'de sürdürülebilir mahalle ölçeğinde yürünebilirliğin WalkScore® endeksi ile ölçülebilirliği: Konya örneği,” Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Konya Teknik Üniversitesi, 2023. [Çevrimiçi]. Available: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/
3. T. Bozovic, E. Hinckson, and M. Smith, “Why do people walk? Role of the built environment and state of development of a social model of walkability,” Travel Behaviour and Society, vol. 20, pp. 181–191, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.tbs.2020.03.010.
4. R. Ewing and R. Cervero, “Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis,” J. Am. Plann. Assoc., vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 265–294, 2010, doi: 10.1080/01944361003766766.
5. L. S. Valverde-Caballero, L. M. Mendoza-Salazar, C. L. Butron-Revilla, E. Suarez-Lopez ve J. S. Aguilar-Ruiz, "Walkability index for world heritage cities in developing countries," Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, cilt. 52, sayı. 1, ss. 76-96, 2025, doi: 10.1177/23998083241250265.
6. J. J. Fruin, Pedestrian Planning and Design. New York: Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, 1971.
7. L. D. Frank, P. O. Engelke, and T. L. Schmid, Health and Community Design: The Impact of the Built Environment on Physical Activity. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005.
8. R. Ewing ve R. Cervero, "Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis," Journal of the American Planning Association, cilt. 76, sayı. 3, ss. 265-294, 2010.

9. M. Southworth, “Designing the walkable city,” J. Urban Plann. Dev., vol. 131, no. 4, pp. 246–257, 2005, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2005)131:4(246).
10. S. Handy, M. G. Boarnet, R. Ewing, and R. Killingsworth, “How the built environment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning,” Am. J. Prev. Med., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 64–75, 2002, doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00475-0.
11. S. Park, “Defining, measuring, and evaluating path walkability, and testing its impacts on transit users’ mode choice and walking distance to the station,” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. California, Berkeley, 2008.
12. R. Cervero and K. Kockelman, “Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design,” Transp. Res. Part D, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 199–219, 1997, doi: 10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6.
13. H. Kato, “Effect of walkability on urban sustainability in the Osaka metropolitan fringe area,” Sustainability, vol. 12, p. 9248, 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12219248.
14. H. Kato and K. Kanki, “Development of walkability indicator for visualising smart shrinking—A case study of sprawl areas in North Osaka Metropolitan Region,” Int. Rev. Spat. Plan. Sustain. Dev., vol. 8, pp. 39–58, 2020.
15. I. A. Sayer and C. J. Palmer, “Pedestrian accidents and road safety education in selected developing countries,” in Proc. 3rd Afr. Road Safety Congr., Pretoria, 1997.
16. M. Southworth, "Designing the Walkable City," Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 131, 4, 2005.
17. K. Lynch, The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960.
18. L. Suminar and L. Kusumaningrum, “Application of walkability principles of pedestrian path in supporting the green city concept,” Inersia, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 122–131, 2022, doi: 10.21831/inersia.v18i2.49247.
19. A. J. Sonta and X. Jiang, “Rethinking walkability: Exploring the relationship between urban form and neighborhood social cohesion,” Sustain. Cities Soc., vol. 96, 104903, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2023.104903.
20. J. Gehl, Cities for People. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2010.
21. T. A. Litman, Economic Value of Walkability. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2014.
22. J. O’Hanlon ve J. Scott, Healthy Communities: The Walkability Assessment Tool. Newark, DE: Institute for Public Administration, University of Delaware, 2010.
23. D. Thakur and V. Walia, “Strategies and implications that can be used to improve walkability through urban design,” Indian Scientific Journal of Research in Engineering and Management, 2024, doi: 10.55041/ijsrem29328.
24. R. Messeidy, “Towards better cities: Improving walkability in terms of seven principles,” J. Urban Res., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 154–171, 2019, doi: 10.21608/JUR.2019.86916.
25. K. Žnidaršič and M. Juvančič, “Walkability in residential neighbourhoods: Themes and principles revisited,” Urbani izziv, vol. 32, suppl., pp. S70–S83, 2021, doi: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2021-32-supplement-4.
26. R. Ewing ve S. Handy, "Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability," Journal of Urban Design, cilt. 14, sayı. 1, ss. 65–84, 2009, doi: 10.1080/13574800802451155.
27. R. Ewing, S. Handy, R. C. Brownson, O. Clemente, and E. Winston, “Identifying and measuring urban design qualities related to walkability,” J. Phys. Act. Health, 2006.
28. T. Pikora, B. Giles-Corti, F. Bull, K. Jamrozik, and R. Donovan, “Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling,” Soc. Sci. Med., vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 1693–1703, 2003.
29. A. Forsyth and M. Southworth, “Cities afoot—Pedestrian walkability and the central city,” J. Urban Design, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–3, 2008, doi: 10.1080/13574800701803498.
30. R. Pentella, Walkability and the Built Environment: A Neighborhood- and Street-Scale Assessment of Diverse San Francisco Neighborhoods, Master’s thesis, 2009.
31. S. Werner and L. E. Schindler, “The role of spatial reference frames in architecture: Misalignment impairs wayfinding performance,” Environ. Behav., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 461–482, 2004, doi: 10.1177/0013916503261383.
32. E. G. W. T. Edirisinghe ve C. Hewawasam, "An investigation of the relationship of streetscape visual enclosure and the pedestrian movement in selected case studies in Colombo," Journal of Engineering and Architecture, cilt. 8, sayı. 1, ss. 11–30, 2020, doi: 10.15640/jea.v8n1a2.
33. J. Gehl, Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2011.
34. R. Shields, Places on the Margin: Alternative Geographies of Modernity. London: Routledge, 2001.
35. S. Marshall, Streets and Patterns. London: Spon Press, 2005.
36. M. Southworth, “Walkable suburbs? An evaluation of neotraditional communities at the urban edge,” J. Am. Plann. Assoc., vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 28–44, 1997.
37. R. Ewing and O. Clemente, Measuring Urban Design: Metrics for Livable Places. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2013.
38. S. Handy, “Critical assessment of the literature on the relationships among transportation, land use, and physical activity,” Transportation Research Board Special Report 282, 2005.
39. N. Owen, N. Humpel, E. Leslie, A. Bauman, and J. F. Sallis, “Understanding environmental influences on walking: Review and research agenda,” Am. J. Prev. Med., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 67–76, 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.03.006.
40. S. Foster and B. Giles-Corti, “The built environment, neighborhood crime and constrained physical activity: An exploration of inconsistent findings,” Prev. Med., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 241–251, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.02.017.
41. B. E. Saelens, J. F. Sallis, and L. D. Frank, “Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures,” Ann. Behav. Med., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 80–91, 2003, doi: 10.1207/S15324796ABM2502_03.
42. M. Storper and A. J. Venables, “Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy,” J. Econ. Geogr., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 351–370, 2004, doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbh027.
43. D. Massey, For Space. London: SAGE Publications, 2005.
44. O. Sadeghi and G. Di Marzo Serugendo, “Assessing walkability in urban environments: A comprehensive overview,” Preprints, Dec. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints20241
45. A. Venerandi, H. Mellen, O. Romice, and S. Porta, “Walkability Indices—The State of the Art and Future Directions: A Systematic Review,” Sustainability, vol. 16, no. 16, p. 6730, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.3390/su16166730.