Kültürel Mirasa İlişkin Farkındalık, Algı ve Yaya Yoğunluğu: İzmir’de Bir Vaka Çalışması

Öz

"Gezmesek de görmesek de o köy bizim köyümüzdür" sözünden yola çıkarak, bu çalışmada sıkça ziyaret edilen ve yürünebilir alanlardaki tarihi yapılara ilişkin farkındalığımız daha mı yüksektir yoksa tarihi yapıların yanından geçmesek de görmesek de onların farkında olur, tanır, değerini bilir korur muyuz gibi sorulara cevap aranmıştır. Daha somut ifade etmek gerekirse; bu çalışmada İzmir'in tarihi bölgesindeki tarihi yapıların (ve yapıların yer aldığı sokakların) kullanıcılar tarafından ne derece estetik bulunduğu ve ne derece fark edildiği ile bu sokakların yayalar tarafından ne derece tercih edildiği arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Seçilen tarihi binaların çevresindeki yaya yoğunluğunun yürünebilirliğin bir göstergesi olduğu varsayılmıştır. Tarihi yapıların çevresindeki yaya yoğunluğu (ve yürünebilirlik) hem nesnel hem öznel yöntemlerle ölçülmüştür. Gerçek yaya yoğunluğunu ölçmek için belirli yerlerden geçen insan sayısı belirli aralıklarda gözlem yoluyla ölçülmüştür. Ayrıca anketler aracılığı ile rapor edilen yaya yoğunluğu bilgisi elde edilmiştir. Bu tarihi yapıları (Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi'ne ait kültürel mirasları) ne kadar tanıdığı / bildiği ve ne derece estetik bulduğu ise 138 katılımcının dahil olduğu anketlerle değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuçlar, iyi korunmuş ve estetik açıdan öne çıkan binaların çevresindeki sokakların yayalar tarafından daha sık tercih edildiğini; diğer bir deyişle, artan yaya yoğunluğunun kültürel miras alanlarına yönelik farkındalık ile ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca, sonuçlar estetik açıdan çekici sokakların, rekreasyon amaçlı yürüyüşler için daha uygun bulunduğuna işaret etmektedir. Bu bulgular, yürünebilir alanların kentsel planlama ve kültürel mirasın korunmasındaki değerini vurgulamakta; yaya deneyiminin, kültürel miras farkındalığını artırabileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kültürel Miras Farkındalığı
• İzmir
• Yaya Yoğunluğu
• Yürünebilirlik.

Cultural Heritage Perception, Awareness and Pedestrian Density: A Case Study in İzmir

Öz

Inspired by the well-known Turkish proverb "Even if we don't visit or see it, that village is still ours", this study explored whether historical buildings in frequently visited and walkable areas are more widely recognized, or if it is possible to identify, appreciate, and preserve historically significant buildings without seeing or passing by them. Specifically, this study investigates the relationship between pedestrian density and cultural heritage perception and awareness in Izmir’s historic district. Surveys were conducted with 138 residents to evaluate their knowledge of historical buildings from the Early Republican Period (or their cultural heritage awareness) and how they perceived the aesthetic quality of both the buildings and the streets where they are located. As a walkability indicator, pedestrian density around selected historical buildings was measured via objective and subjective methods. Unobtrusive observations, such as counting the number of people at specific locations during designated time intervals were used to evaluate the actual behaviour (objective measure). Additionally, surveys were employed to understand people's tendency to walk through the streets where these buildings are located (reported behaviour / subjective measure). The results show that streets surrounding well-preserved and aesthetically prominent buildings are preferred more often by pedestrians; or vice a versa. Results also confirm that increased pedestrian density is associated with a greater awareness of cultural heritage sites. Furthermore, aesthetically appealing streets are considered more suitable for recreational walking. These findings highlight the value of walkable spaces in urban planning and cultural heritage conservation, as pedestrian experience can boost awareness of cultural heritage.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cultural Heritage Awareness
• İzmir
• Pedestrian Density
• Walkability.

Kaynakça

1. Abdel-Hadi, A., El-Nachar, E., & Safieldin, H. (2009, October 12-16). Pedestrian Street Life in Historic Cairo Authenticity and Counterfeit [Conference session]. International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network, Istanbul, Turkey.
2. Abdulla, K. M. A., Abdelmonem, M. G., & Selim, G. (2017). Walkability in historic urban spaces: Testing the safety and security in Martyrs’ Square in Tripoli. Archnet-IJAR, 11(3), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v11i3.1378
3. Alfonzo, M. A. (2005). To walk or not to walk? The hierarchy of walking needs. Environment and Behavior, 37(6), 808–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916504274016
4. Avar Arslan, A. (2009). Lefebvre’in üçlü –algilanan, tasarlanan, yaşanan mekân– diyalektiği. TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Ankara Şubesi Dosya Dergisi, 17, 7-16. http://www.mimarlarodasiankara.org/dosya/dosya17.pdf
5. Appleyard, B., Appleyard, D. (2021). Liveable Streets 2.0. Elsevier.
6. Ball, K., Bauman, A., Leslie, E., & Owen, N. (2001). Perceived environmental aesthetics and convenience and company are associated with walking for exercise among Australian adults. Preventive Medicine, 33(5), 434–440. https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.2001.0912
7. Barrera-Fernández, D., & Hernández-Escampa, M. (2019). Walkability in the historic city of Oaxaca, Mexico. Event Management, 23(4), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.3727/152599519X15506259855689
8. Bassett, K. (2004). Walking as an aesthetic practice and a critical tool: Some psychogeographic experiments. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 28(3), 397–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309826042000286965

9. Basu, N., Oviedo-Trespalacios, O., King, M., Kamruzzaman, M., & Haque, M. M. (2023). What do pedestrians consider when choosing a route? The role of safety, security, and attractiveness perceptions and the built environment during day and night walking. Cities, 143, 104551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104551
10. Beenackers, M. A., Kamphuis, C. B. M., Prins, R. G., Mackenbach, J. P., Burdorf, A., & Van Lenthe, F. J. (2014). Urban form and psychosocial factors: Do they interact for leisure-time walking? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 46(2), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000017
11. Belge, Z. S. (2012). Increing Walkability Capacity of Historic City Centers: The Case of Mersin (Dissertation No: 318828) [Master’s Thesis, Middle East Technical University]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
12. Benjamin, W. (2002). Pasajlar. (A. Cemal, Trns.). Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
13. Bolshakov, V., & Merkuryeva, G. (2016, June 1-3). Simulation in Intelligent Management of Pedestrian Flows at Heritage Sites [Conference session]. 2nd International Conference on Systems Informatics, Modelling and Simulation, Riga, Latvia.
14. Bunds, K. S., Casper, J. M., Hipp, J. A., & Koenigstorfer, J. (2019). Recreational walking decisions in urban away-from-home environments: The relevance of air quality, noise, traffic, and the natural environment. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 65, 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.08.006
15. Campisi, T., Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G., Tesoriere, G., & Torrisi, V. (2021). Evaluation of walkability and mobility requirements of visually impaired people in urban spaces. Research in Transportation Business and Man-agement, 40, 100592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100592
16. Cao, X., Handy, S. L., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2006). The influences of the built environment and residential self-selection on pedestrian behavior: Evidence from Austin, TX. Transportation, 33(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-005-7027-2
17. Cetintahra, G. E. (2015). The Effect of Perceived Physical Environment on Children’s Physical Activity. Plan-ning, 25(3), 205-211. https://doi.org/10.5505/planlama.2015.32932
18. Cheng, L., Caset, F., De Vos, J., Derudder, B., & Witlox, F. (2019). Investigating walking accessibility to recrea-tional amenities for elderly people in Nanjing, China. Transportation Research Part D, 76, 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.09.019
19. Christian, H., Knuiman, M., Divitini, M., Foster, S., Hooper, P., Boruff, B., Bull, F., & Giles-Corti, B. (2017). A lon-gitudinal analysis of the influence of the neighborhood environment on recreational walking within the neigh-borhood: Results from RESIDE. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(7), 077009. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP823
20. Cihanger Ribeiro, D. (2019). The Poiesis of Everyday Life and Space in Yüksel Street. Journal of Ankara Studies, 7(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.5505/jas.2019.63825
21. Cubukcu, E. (2013). Walking for Sustainable Living. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 85, 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.335
22. Çubukçu, E. (2014). Kentsel Çevrede Fiziksel Aktivite ve Aktif Yaşamı Destekleyen Mekansal Özelliklerin Belir-lenmesi: İzmir Karşıyaka Örneği (Project No: 111K383). TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin.
23. Çubukçu, E. (2019). Genç Yetişkinlerin Yürümeyi Tercih Ettiği/Etmediği Mekânların Fiziksel Özelliklerinin Ana-lizine Yönelik Yeni Bir Yöntem Önerisi, (Project No: 116K385). TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin.
24. Cubukcu, E., Hepguzel, B., Onder, Z., & Tumer, B. (2015). Active Living for Sustainable Future: A Model to Measure “Walk Scores” via Geographic Information Systems. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168, 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.228
25. Cysek-Pawlak, M. M., & Pabich, M. (2021). Walkability–the New Urbanism principle for urban regeneration. Journal of Urbanism, 14(4), 409–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2020.1834435
26. Davies, N. J., Lumsdon, L. M., & Weston, R. (2012). Developing recreational trails: motivations for recreational walking. Tourism Planning and Development, 9(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2012.653480
27. Deka, D., Brown, C. T., & Sinclair, J. (2018). Exploration of the effect of violent crime on recreational and transportation walking by path and structural equation models. Health and Place, 52, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.05.004
28. Ding, S., Zhang, R., Liu, Y., Lu, P., & Liu, M. (2023). Visitor crowding at World Heritage Sites based on tourist spatial-temporal distribution: A case study of the Master-of-Nets Garden, China. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 18(5), 632–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2023.2214680
29. Endere, M. L., Chaparro, M. G., & Conforti, M. E. (2018). Making Cultural Heritage Significant for the Public. The Role of Researchers in Encouraging Public Awareness and Local Pride. Public Archaeology, 17(1), 36–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/14655187.2018.1499390
30. Erbay, M., & Saylam Canım, D. (2018). Review of Concept of Awareness Over Historical Environment & Build-ings in Connection with Woman Users: A Pilot Study in Trabzon City. In R. Dorczak, R. Leart-Gansiniec, C. Rug-giero, & M. A. İçbay (Eds.), Research and Development on Social Sciences (pp. 367-378). Jagiellon University Institute of Public Affairs. www.isp.uj.edu.pl
31. Ernawadi, Y., & Putra, H. T. (2021). Authenticity and Walkability of Iconic Heritage Destination in Bandung In-donesia. International Journal of Sciencement, 2(4), 1082–1094. https://doi.org/10.46729/ijstm.v2i4.243
32. Ewing, R., Clemente, O., Handy, S., Brownson, R. C., & Winston, E. (2005). Identifying and Measuring Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3(1), 1-18. https://activelivingresearch.org/sites/activelivingresearch.org/files/JPAH_15_Ewing.pdf
33. Ewing, R., & Handy, S. (2009). Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800802451155
34. Ferrer, S., Ruiz, T., & Mars, L. (2015). A qualitative study on the role of the built environment for short walking trips. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 33, 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.07.014
35. Forsyth, A. (2015). What is a walkable place? The walkability debate in urban design. Urban Design Interna-tional, 20(4), 274–292. https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2015.22
36. Forsyth, A., Jacobson, J., & Thering, K. (2010). Six assessments of the same places: Comparing views of urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 15(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800903429274
37. Frank, L. D., Appleyard, B. S., Ulmer, J. M., Chapman, J. E., & Fox, E. H. (2021). Comparing walkability methods: Creation of street-smart walk score and efficacy of a code-based 3D walkability index. Journal of Transport and Health, 21, 101005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2020.101005
38. García-Hernández, M., de la Calle-Vaquero, M., & Yubero, C. (2017). Cultural heritage and urban tourism: His-toric city centres under pressure. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(8), 1346. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081346
39. Gargiulo, C., Zucaro F. & Gaglione, F. (2019). Improving accessibility to urban services for over 65: a GISsup-ported method. In C. Gargiulo & C. Zoppi (Eds.), Planning, nature and ecosystem services (pp. 839-850). Na-ples: FedOAPress. https://doi.org/10.6093/978-88-6887-054-6
40. Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Island Press
41. Gidlow, C., Cerin, E., Sugiyama, T., Adams, M. A., Mitas, J., Akram, M., Reis, R. S., Davey, R., Troelsen, J., Schofield, G., & Sallis, J. F. (2019). Objectively measured access to recreational destinations and leisure-time physical activity: Associations and demographic moderators in a six-country study. Health and Place, 59, 102196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102196
42. Gündel, H., & Velibeyoğlu, K. (2020). Düşük karbon mahalle: yürüme ve bisiklet öncelikli kentsel tasarım. Mel-tem İzmir Akdeniz Akademisi Dergisi, 8, 5–21. https://doi.org/10.32325/iaad.2020.14
43. Guo, Z., & Loo, B. P. Y. (2013). Pedestrian environment and route choice: Evidence from New York City and Hong Kong. Journal of Transport Geography, 28(C), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.11.013
44. Husar, M., Ondrejicka, V., & Scacchi, M. (2020). Involving citizens through walking: Urban walks as a tool for awareness raising in historic built areas. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 960(2) 022087. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/960/2/022087
45. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Vintage Publisher.
46. Jiménez Martín, D., Ramírez Saiz, A., & Ajuriaguerra Escudero, M. A. (2022). Urban Accessibility in World Her-itage Cities. Accessibility Considerations in Pedestrian Routes in Historic City Centres. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 2(297), 499–506. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI220879
47. Kayın, E.(2013). İzmir Kent Ansiklopedisi Mimarlık. İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi.
48. Kejanli, T., Koç, C., & Alkan, M. C. (2023). Tarihi bölgelere erişilebilirliğin engelli bireyler açısından değerlendirilmesi: Diyarbakır Suriçi bölgesi örneği. GRID - Architecture Planning and Design Journal, 6(2), 699-724. https://doi.org/10.37246/grid.1208072
49. Kerdani, D. Y. El, Shafik, Z. Y., & Abdullah, M. A. (2017, November 24). Cycling And Walkability as Enablers to Preserve The Urban Heritage of Maadi Case Study: Street Number 250 [Conference session]. The 1st Interna-tional Conference: Towards A Better Quality of Life, Berlin, Germany. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3170362
50. Kolsal, F., & Güven Ulusoy, F. Ö. (2022). Kent deneyimi ve belleğin imgelerle dönüşümü. GRID - Architecture, Planning and Design Journal, 6(1), 108-132. https://doi.org/10.37246/grid.1060792
51. Koohsari, M. J., Sugiyama, T., Hanibuchi, T., Shibata, A., Ishii, K., Liao, Y., & Oka, K. (2018). Validity of Walk Score® as a measure of neighborhood walkability in Japan. Preventive Medicine Reports, 28(9), 114–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.01.001
52. Kuyulu, İ. (2000). İzmir’de Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarisi. Sanat Tarihi Dergisi, 10(10), 91–100.
53. Lachowycz, K., & Jones, A. P. (2014). Does walking explain associations between access to greenspace and-lower mortality? Social Science and Medicine, 107(100), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.023
54. Lai, K. Y., Kumari, S., Gallacher, J., Webster, C., & Sarkar, C. (2022). Associations of residential walkability and greenness with arterial stiffness in the UK Biobank. Environment International, 158, 106960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106960
55. Lai, T. F., Chang, C. S., Liao, Y., Hsueh, M. C., Koohsari, M. J., Shibata, A., & Oka, K. (2021). Does neighborhood built environment support older adults’ daily steps differ by time of day? Journal of Transport and Health, 22, 101234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101234
56. Lee, J., Kim, J., Ahn, J., & Woo, W. (2019). Context-aware risk management for architectural heritage using historic building information modeling and virtual reality. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 38, 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2018.12.010
57. Lee, S., Lee, C., Nam, J. W., Abbey-Lambertz, M., & Mendoza, J. A. (2020). School walkability index: Applica-tion of environmental audit tool and GIS. Journal of Transport and Health, 18, 100880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2020.100880
58. Lehman, M., Boyle, M., Mix, T., & DeCoursey, W. J. (2007). Healthy and Walkable Communities. Institute for Public Administration College of Human Services, Education & Public Policy University of Delaware. https://udspace.udel.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/dee8610a-0da1-47db-a779-94bace46140a/content
59. Lewis, E. (2015). Stepping Towards Sustainability: Analyzing Walkability in Urban Environments. Student The-ses 2015-Present. 184, 1-68. https://research.library.fordham.edu/environ_2015/184
60. Li, Q., Lv, S., Cui, J., Zhang, J., & Liu, Y. (2024). Environmental Perception about Pedestrian Environment on Cul-tural Visitation Roads. Sustainability (Switzerland), 16(16), 7097. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167097
61. Lo, R. H. (2009). Walkability: What is it? Journal of Urbanism, 2(2), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549170903092867
62. Lomadze, E. (2024). Pedestrian Perception of Walkability in Public Spaces Example of a Historical Neigh-bourhood in Batumi [Master’s dissertation, Malmö University]. Publikationer från Malmö Universitet.
63. Ma, X., Chi Kwan, C., & Hung Kit Lai, J. (2021). Critical Factors Influencing the Comfort Evaluation for Recrea-tional Walking in Urban Street Environments. Cities, 116(0), 103286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103286
64. Maniei, H., Askarizad, R., Pourzakarya, M., & Gruehn, D. (2024). The Influence of Urban Design Performance on Walkability in Cultural Heritage Sites of Isfahan, Iran. Land, 13(9), 1523. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13091523
65. Marín-Nicolás, J., & Sáez-Pérez, M. P. (2022). An Evaluation Tool for Physical Accessibility of Cultural Heritage Buildings. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(22), 15251. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215251
66. McIlroy, R. C., Nam, V. H., Bunyasi, B. W., Jikyong, U., Kokwaro, G. O., Wu, J., Hoque, M. S., Plant, K. L., Preston, J. M., & Stanton, N. A. (2020). Exploring the relationships between pedestrian behaviours and traffic safety attitudes in six countries. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 68, 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.11.006
67. Mehanna, W. A. E. H., & Mehanna, W. A. E. H. (2019). Urban renewal for traditional commercial streets at the historical centers of cities. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 58(4), 1127–1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.09.015
68. Mehta, V. (2019). Streets and social life in cities: a taxonomy of sociability. Urban Design International, 24(1), 16–37. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-018-0069-9
69. Middleton, J. (2010). Sense and the city: Exploring the embodied geographies of urban walking. Social and Cultural Geography, 11(6), 575–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2010.497913
70. Middleton, J. (2018). The socialities of everyday urban walking and the ‘right to the city.’ Urban Studies, 55(2), 296–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016649325
71. Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2020). Urban and transport planning pathways to carbon neutral, liveable and healthy cities; A review of the current evidence. Environment International, 140, 105661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105661
72. Nyaupane, G., & Timothy, D. (2009). Public Awareness and Perceptions of Heritage Buildings in Arizona, USA. Travel and Tourism Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally. 32, 1-11. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14394/48197
73. Önen, S. (2016). Kenti Yürüyerek Keşfetmenin Sosyolojisi. Kent Araştırmaları Dergisi (Journal of Urban Studies), 7(18), 286–303. http://idealkentdergisi.com
74. Özdemir, N. (2009). Kültür Ekonomisi Ve Endüstrileri İle Kültürel Miras Yönetimi İlişkisi. Milli Folklor Dergisi, 11(84), 73-86.
75. Özkaraca Özalp, N., & Halaç, H. H. (2023). Tarihi Çevrede Korumanın Üçüncü Boyutu Olarak Silüet: Korunma Sorunlarının Medya Perspektifinden İncelenmesi. GRID - Architecture Planning and Design Journal, 7(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.37246/grid.1077009
76. Pehlivan, G. F., Baldiran, A., & Pehlivan, E. (2021). Kültürel mirasın belgelenmesinde farklı tekniklerin karşılaştırılması: Iasos Bouleuterionu örneği. GRID - Architecture, Planning and Design Journal, 5(1), 53-71. https://doi.org/10.37246/grid.946786
77. Pikora, T. J., Giles-Corti, B., Knuiman, M. W., Bull, F. C., Jamrozik, K., & Donovan, R. J. (2006). Neighborhood environmental factors correlated with walking near home: Using SPACES. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 38(4), 708–714. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000210189.64458.f3
78. Pizarro-Reyes, L., Díaz-Lazcano, V., Zumelzu, A., & Prieto, A. J. (2022). Resilience and sustainability assess-ment of cultural heritage and built environment: The Libertad pedestrian walkway in Valdivia, Chile. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 53, 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2021.11.013
79. Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., Black, J. B., & Chen, D. (2003). Neighborhood-Based Differences in Physical Activi-ty: An Environment Scale Evaluation. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1552–1558. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1552
80. Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., & Frank, L. D. (2003). Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25(2), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324796ABM2502_03
81. Shankar, B., & Swamy, C. (2013). Creating Awareness for Heritage Conservation in the City of Mysore: Issues and Policies. International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER), 3(2), 698-703. https://www.ijmer.com/papers/Vol3_Issue2/AQ32698703.pdf
82. Shatu, F., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2018). Development and validity of a virtual street walkability audit tool for pedes-trian route choice analysis—SWATCH. Journal of Transport Geography, 70, 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.06.004
83. Sheng, N., & Wa Tang, U. (2011). Spatial analysis of urban form and pedestrian exposure to traffic noise. Inter-national Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(6), 1977–1990. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8061977
84. Shimray, S. R. (2019). Ways to Create Awareness on Cultural Heritage: An overview. Philosophy and Practice, 2577, 1-7. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac
85. Southworth, M. (2005). Designing the Walkable City. Journal Of Urban Planning And Development, 131(4), 246-257. https://doi.org/10.1061/ASCE0733-94882005131:4246
86. Spoon, S. C., Khattak, A. J., Richard, E., & Killingsworth, M. P. H. (2005). What Defines Walkability: Walking Behavior Correlates [Master’s Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]. Carolina Digital Re-pository.
87. Sugiyama, T., Cerin, E., Owen, N., Oyeyemi, A. L., Conway, T. L., Van Dyck, D., Schipperijn, J., Macfarlane, D. J., Salvo, D., Reis, R. S., Mitáš, J., Sarmiento, O. L., Davey, R., Schofield, G., Orzanco-Garralda, R., & Sallis, J. F. (2014). Perceived neighbourhood environmental attributes associated with adults[U+05F3] recreational walking: IPEN Adult study in 12 countries. Health and Place, 11(28), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.03.003
88. Sugiyama, T., Gunn, L. D., Christian, H., Francis, J., Foster, S., Hooper, P., Owen, N., & Giles-Corti, B. (2015). Quality of public open spaces and recreational walking. American Journal of Public Health, 105(12), 2490–2495. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302890
89. Tarek, M., Hassan, G. F., Elshater, A., & Elfayoumi, M. (2021). Investigating Built Environment Indicators to De-velop a Local Walkability Index. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, 5(2), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2021.v5n2-7
90. Teixeira, J. F., Silva, C., Seisenberger, S., Büttner, B., McCormick, B., Papa, E., & Cao, M. (2024). Classifying 15-minute Cities: A review of worldwide practices. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 189, 104234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2024.104234
91. Traunmuller, M., & Schieck, A. F. (2013, June 29-02). Introducing the Space Recommender System: How crowd-sourced voting data can enrich Urban Exploration in the digital Era [Conference Session]. 6th Interna-tional Conference on Communities and Technologies, Munich, Germany.
92. Türkelleri, B. (2004). İzmir’de Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Eserleri (Tez No: 146419)[Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ege Ün-iversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
93. Ulusan, E. (2022). Kültürel Miras Yönetim Planlaması Kavramsal Çerçevesi ve İlgili Lisansüstü Araştırmalar Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Journal of Planning, 33(1), 40-57. https://doi.org/10.14744/planlama.2022.93276
94. Wali, B., Frank, L. D., Saelens, B. E., Young, D. R., Meenan, R. T., Dickerson, J. F., Keast, E. M., & Fortmann, S. P. (2024). Associations of walkability, regional and transit accessibility around home and workplace with active and sedentary travel. Journal of Transport Geography, 116, 103776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103776
95. Wang, H., & Yang, Y. (2019). Neighbourhood walkability: A review and bibliometric analysis. Cities, 93(6), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.04.015
96. Wang, Y., & Wong, Y. D. (2020). Repositioning urban heritage for active mobility: Indications from news cover-age in Singapore. Cities, 98(102525), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102525
97. Wekerle, G. (2000). From Eyes on the Streets to Safe Cities. Places, 13(1), 44-51. https://placesjournal.org/assets/legacy/pdfs/from-eyes-on-the-street-to-safe-cities.pdf
98. Wunderlich, F. M. (2008). Walking and rhythmicity: Sensing urban space. Journal of Urban Design, 13(1), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800701803472
99. Xu, J. L. (2019). From walking buffers to active places: An activity-based approach to measure human-scale urban form. Landscape and Urban Planning, 191, 103452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.10.008
100. Yoon, Y. J., Kim, S. Y., Lee, Y. K., Ham, N., Kim, J. H., & Kim, J. J. (2023). GIS-Based Multi-Objective Routing Ap-proach for Street-Based Sporting-Event Routing. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 13(14), 8453. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13148453
101. Zainol, R., Ahmad, F., Nordin, N. A., & Aripin, A. W. M. (2014, August 26-29). Evaluation of users’ satisfaction on pedestrian facilities using pair-wise comparison approach [Conference Session]. 8th International Symposium of the Digital Earth (ISDE8), Sarawak, Malaysia. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/18/1/012175
102. Zainol, R., Wang, C., Ali, A. S., Ahmad, F., Mohd Aripin, A. W., & Salleh, H. (2016). Pedestrianization And Walk-ability In A Fast Developing Unesco World Heritage City. Open House International, 41(1), 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1108/OHI-01-2016-B0016
103. Zhenrao, C., Chaoyang, F., Qian, Z., & Fulong, C. (2021). Joint development of cultural heritage protection and tourism: the case of Mount Lushan cultural landscape heritage site. Heritage Science, 9(86), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-021-00558-5
104. Zhou, H., He, S., Cai, Y., Wang, M., & Su, S. (2019). Social inequalities in Neighbourhood visual walkability: Using street view imagery and deep learning technologies to facilitate healthy city planning. Sustainable Cit-ies and Society, 50, 101605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101605