The Effect of Socio-Demographic Characteristics and Physical Environment Features on Walkability Perception

Abstract

In this study, the positive effects of creating walkable environments on human life are emphasized. Walking is the least harmful transportation mode for the environment where people use in their daily lives. In recent years, professional disciplines such as architects, landscape architects and urban planners are more concerned with the search for solutions to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion, and to direct people for walking access. The persons have been living in places where designed for walking have more opportunities to increase their daily physical activity levels. Creating walkable urban environment is important for community health as well as sustainability. Walkability is affected by biological, psychological, socio-demographic and socio-cultural characteristics. The aim of this study is to reveal that the effect of socio-demographic structure with mix use and access to green areas from physical environmental features on walkability perception. In this context, in order to determine and evaluate the relationship between subjects of walkability, walkability perception, mix use, open and green areas were investigated and literature review was conducted. Within the scope of this study, firstly the walkability and walkability perception concepts were evaluated. Then, the relationship between these concepts and the neighborhood design was emphasized. Finally, it was determined that socio-demographic structure, mix use and access to urban green areas affected walkability perception, and walkability perception affected walking behavior.

Keywords

• Walkability
• Walkability Perception
• Open and Green Areas
• Neighborhood Design

Sosyo-Demografik Yapı ve Fiziksel Çevre Özelliklerinin Yürünebilirlik Algısı Üzerine Etkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışmada yürünebilir çevreler oluşturulmasının insan hayatına olan olumlu etkileri üzerinde durulmuştur. Yürümek, insanların günlük yaşamlarında kullandıkları çevreye en az zarar veren ulaşım biçimidir. Son yıllarda, mimarlar, peyzaj mimarları ve şehir plancıları gibi meslek disiplinleri; hava kirliliği ve trafik sıkışıklığını azaltmak ve yürüyen bir toplum oluşturmanın önemi üzerinde daha çok durmaktadırlar. Yürüyüşe uygun tasarlanmış alanlarda yaşayan bireyler günlük fiziksel aktivite düzeylerini arttırmak için daha fazla fırsata sahiptirler. Yürünebilir kentsel çevreler oluşturmak, sürdürebilirliğin yanı sıra toplum sağlığı için de önemlidir. Yürünebilirlik, biyolojik, psikolojik, sosyo-demografik, sosyo-kültürel özelliklerden etkilenmektedir.

 

Bu araştırmanın amacı, sosyo-demografik yapı ile fiziksel çevre özelliklerinden karma arazi kullanımının ve yeşil alanlara erişimin yürünebilirlik algısını üzerindeki etkisini ortaya çıkarmaktır. Bu bağlamda, literatür tarama yöntemine başvurulmuş, kavramlar arası ilişkiyi belirlemek ve değerlendirmek amaçlı çalışma kapsamında yürünebilirlik, yürünebilirlik algısı, karma arazi kullanımı, açık ve yeşil alan konularını ele alan çalışmalar incelenmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında öncelikle yürünebilirlik ve yürünebilirlik algısı kavramları ele alınmıştır. Sonrasında ise bu kavramların mahalle tasarımıyla olan ilişkisi vurgulanmıştır. Sosyo-demografik yapının, karma arazi kullanımının ve kentsel yeşil alanlara erişimin yürünebilirlik algısını etkilediği, yürünebilirlik algısının da yürüme davranışı etkilediği belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Yürünebilirlik
• Yürünebilirlik Algısı
• Açık ve Yeşil Alanlar
• Mahalle Tasarımı

References

1. [1] WHO/Christopher Black, (24 Ekim 2016). [Online]. Erişim: http://www.who.int/sustainable-development/cities/health-risks/urban-green-space/en/
2. [2] SCOPUS (13 Şubat 2018). [Online]. Erişim: https://www.scopus.com/term/analyzer.uri?sid=009E3819C134822FBC327C5FC751612D.wsnAw8kcdt7IPYLO0V48gA%3a70&origin=resultslist&src=s&s=%28TITLE-ABS-KEY%28walkability%29+AND+TITLE-ABS-KEY%28neighborhood+design%29%29&sort=plf-f&sdt=b&sot=b&sl=67&count=353&analyzeResults=Analyze+results&txGid=009E3819C134822FBC327C5FC751612D.wsnAw8kcdt7IPYLO0V48gA%3a12
3. [3] A. Tekel ve Y. Özalp, “Mekanın Fiziksel ve Algısal Niteliğinin Yürünebilirliğe ve Mekanda Yürümeden Duyulan Memnuniyete Etkisi: Ankara Atatürk Bulvarı Örneği,” Planlama Dergisi, c. 26, s. 1, ss. 40–50, 2016.
4. [4] Y. Özalp, “Mekansal kalitenin yürünebilirlik üzerindeki etkisi: Ankara-Atatürk bulvarı örneği,” Yüksek Lisans tezi, Şehir Bölge Planlama Bölümü, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye, 2016.
5. [5] S. C. Spoon, “What defines walkability: Walking behavior correlates,” M.S. project, City and Regional Planning, North Carolina University, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 2005.
6. [6] T. Litman, "Social inclusion as a transport planning issue in Canada," presented at the European Transport Conference, Strassbourg, 2003.
7. [7] S. H. Rogers, J. M. Halstead, K. H. Gardner ve C. H. Carlson, “Examining walkability and social capital as indicators of quality of life at the municipal and neighborhood scales,” Applied Research in Quality of Life, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 201–213, 2011.
8. [8] N. Owen, E. Cerin, E. Leslie, N. Coffee, L. D. Frank, A. E. Bauman, G. Hugo, B. E. Saelens ve J. F. Sallis, “Neighborhood walkability and the walking behavior of Australian adults,” American journal of preventive medicine, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 387-395, 2007.

9. [9] K. Gebel, A. Bauman ve N. Owen, “Correlates of non-concordance between perceived and objective measures of walkability,” Annals of behavioral medicine, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 228–238, 2009.
10. [10] E. Cerin, B. E. Saelens, J. F. Sallis ve L. D. Frank, “Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale: validity and development of a short form,” Medicine and science in sports and exercise, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 1682–1691, 2006.
11. [11] M. Johansson, C. Sternudd ve M. Kärrholm, “Perceived urban design qualities and affective experiences of walking,” Journal of Urban Design, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 256–275, 2016.
12. [12] G. R. McCormack, E. Cerin, E. Leslie, L. Du Toit ve N. Owen, “Objective versus perceived walking distances to destinations: correspondence and predictive validity,” Environment and behavior, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 401–425, 2008.
13. [13] K. Ball, R. W. Jeffery, D. A. Crawford, R. J. Roberts, J. Salmon ve A. F. Timperio, “Mismatch between perceived and objective measures of physical activity environments,” Preventive medicine, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 294–298, 2008.
14. [14] L. Wood, L. D. Frank ve B. Giles-Corti, “Sense of community and its relationship with walking and neighborhood design,” Social science & medicine, vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 1381–1390, 2010.
15. [15] V. Basolo ve D. Strong, “Understanding the neighborhood: From residents’ perceptions and needs to action,” Housing Policy Debate, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 83–105, 2002.
16. [16] M. Amérigo ve J. I. Aragones, “A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction,” Journal of environmental psychology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 47–57, 1997.
17. [17] Anonim, (16 Mart 2017). [Online]. Erişim: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm92.htm.
18. [18] P. Fan, L. Xu ve J. Chen, “Accessibility of public urban green space in an urban periphery: The case of Shanghai,” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 165, pp. 177–192, 2017.
19. [19] R. Ewing, S. Handy, R. C. Brownson, O. Clemente ve E. Winston, “Identifying and measuring urban design qualities related to walkability,” Journal of Physical Activity and Health, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 223–240, 2006.
20. [20] G. R. McCormack, M. Rock, A. M. Toohey ve D. Hignell, “Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: a review of qualitative research,” Health & place, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 712–726, 2010.
21. [21] P. Grahn ve U. A. Stigsdotter, “Landscape planning and stress,” Urban forestry & urban greening, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2003.
22. [22] T. S. Nielsen ve K. B. Hansen, “Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators,” Health & place, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 839–850, 2007.
23. [23] R. C. Fermino, R. S. Reis, P. C. Hallal ve J. C. de Farias Júnior, “Perceived environment and public open space use: a study with adults from Curitiba, Brazil,” International journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 35, 2013
24. [24] A. Aurand, “Density, housing types and mixed land use: Smart tools for affordable housing?,” Urban studies, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 1015–1036, 2010.
25. [25] D. Ettema ve I. Smajic, “Walking, places and wellbeing,” The Geographical Journal, vol. 181, no. 2, pp. 102–109, 2015.
26. [26] H. J. Jun ve M. Hur, “The relationship between walkability and neighborhood social environment: The importance of physical and perceived walkability,” Applied Geography, vol. 62, pp. 115–124, 2015
27. [27] S. G. Stradling, J. Anable ve M. Carreno, “Performance, importance and user disgruntlement: A six-step method for measuring satisfaction with travel modes,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 98–106, 2007.
28. [28] A. Özbil, D. Yeşiltepe ve G. Argin, “Modeling walkability: The effects of street design, street-network configuration and land-use on pedestrian movement,” A| Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 189–207, 2015.
29. [29] P. Hess, A. Moudon, M. Snyder ve K. Stanilov, “Site design and pedestrian travel,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, pp. 9–19, 1999.
30. [30] V. Van Holle, B. Deforche, J. Van Cauwenberg, L. Goubert, L. Maes, N. Van de Weghe ve I. De Bourdeaudhuij, “Relationship between the physical environment and different domains of physical activity in European adults: a systematic review,” BMC public health, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 807, 2012.
31. [31] J. Zoellner, J. L. Zynda, A. D. Sample ve K. Yadrick, “Environmental perceptions and objective walking trail audits inform a community-based participatory research walking intervention,” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 6, 2012
32. [32] A. Parkes ve A. Kearns, “The multi-dimensional neighbourhood and health: a cross-sectional analysis of the Scottish Household Survey, 2001,” Health & Place, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2006.
33. [33] J. Van Cauwenberg, V. Van Holle, D. Simons, R. Deridder, P. Clarys, L. Goubert, J. Nasar, J. Salmon, I. De Bourdeaudhuij ve B. Deforche, “Environmental factors influencing older adults’ walking for transportation: a study using walk-along interviews,” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 85, 2012.
34. [34] P. Mason, A. Kearns ve L. Bond, “Neighbourhood walking and regeneration in deprived communities,” Health & place, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 727–737, 2011.
35. [35] B. E. Saelens, J. F. Sallis ve L. D. Frank, “Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures,” Annals of behavioral medicine, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 80–91, 2003.