Determining of Planning Criteria That Encourage Walking in Urban Corridors: A Study With The Residents of Trabzon

Yıl 2023, , 91 - 115, 25.06.2023

Müge Yurtcan , Banu Çiçek Kurdoğlu

https://doi.org/10.58816/duzceod.1214316

Öz

Urban corridors, which were organized as pedestrian-oriented in the period before the invention of the automobile have entered the process of being organized as automobile-oriented in the modernization period when cities began to be reshaped. The widespread of automobile usage has been changing people's travel preferences which resulted in the decrease of walkable environments. Scientists from different disciplines conducted studies on walking and walkability. It is necessary to understand the sociocultural structure and environmental features that persuade people to walk. “Walking Preference Survey”, which can be used as a preliminary study in the planning of walkable corridors, was prepared for this research. The survey was conducted with 597 participants in Trabzon/Ortahisar. The survey was subjected to validity and reliability tests for standardization. 8 walkability criterions were reached in the factor analysis applied to the survey within the scope of the constructive validity analysis. In the study, differences in walking preference were observed according to demographic characteristics and travel habits.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Urban corridor planning, Trabzon, Walking preference, Walkability criteria

Destekleyen Kurum

Institute of Science and Technology, Karadeniz Technical University.

Teşekkür

This research was prepared within the scope of Müge YURTCAN's unpublished doctoral thesis titled "Uncovering Historical City Corridors as Walkable Spaces: The Example of Trabzon" conducted within the body of Institute of Science and Technology, Karadeniz Technical University.

Kentsel Koridorlarda Yürümeyi Teşvik Edici Planlama Ölçütlerinin Belirlenmesi: Trabzon Sakinleriyle Bir Çalışma

Öz

Otomobilin icadından önceki dönemde yaya odaklı olarak düzenlenen kentsel koridorlar, kentlerin yeniden şekillendirildiği modernleşme döneminde otomobil odaklı olarak düzenlenme sürecine girmiştir. Otomobil kullanımının yaygınlaşması, insanların seyahat tercihlerini değişmeye başlamıştır. Yürünebilir ortamların azalması ile sonuçlanan bu değişimin sonucunda farklı disiplinlerden bilim insanları, yürüme ve yürünebilirlik üzerine çalışmalar yürütmüştür. İnsanları yürümeye ikna eden sosyokültürel özelliklerle çevresel özellikleri anlamak gerekmektedir. Bu araştırma kapsamında, yürünebilir koridor planlamalarında ön çalışma olarak kullanılabilecek “Yürüme Tercih Anketi” düzenlenmiştir. Anket, Trabzon/Ortahisar’da 597 katılımcıyla yürütülmüştür. Anket standardizasyonu için geçerlik ve güvenirlik testlerine tabi tutulmuştur. Yapı geçerliği analizi kapsamında, ankete uygulanan faktör analizinde 8 yürünebilirlik ölçütüne ulaşılmıştır. Çalışmada demografik özelliklere ve seyahat alışkanlıklarına göre yürüme tercihinde farklılıklar gözlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kentsel koridor planlaması, Trabzon, Yürünebilirlik ölçütleri, Yürüme tercihi

Kaynakça

• 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. International Journal of Architectural Research, (11), 163-177. http://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v11i3.1378 Abley, S. 2005. Walkability Scoping Paper, https://pdffox.com/walkability-scoping-paper-pdf-free.html Retrieved: 12. 05. 2021.
• Alfonzo, M. A. (2005). To Walk or Not to Walk? The Hierarchy of Walking Needs. Environment and Behavior, (37), 808-836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916504274016
• Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, Y. (1988). On The Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
• Bicycle Federation of America Campain to Make America Walkable (1998). Creating Walkable Communities, A Guide For Local Governments, Washington D.C.
• Broach, J. & Dill, J. (2015). Pedestrian Route Choice Model Estimated from Revealed Preference GPS Data. https://www.activelivingresearch.org/sites/activelivingresearch.org/files/2015_EnviroWalking_Broach.pdf Retrieved: 12.05.2021.
• Clarke, P., Hirsch, J., Melendez, R., Winters, M., Sims Gould, J., Ashe, M., . . . McKay, H. (2017). Snow and Rain Modify Neighbourhood Walkability for Older Adults. Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement, 36(2), 159-169. doi:10.1017/S071498081700006X
• Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct Validity in Psychological Tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281-302. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
• Day, K., Boarnet, M., Alfonzo, M., Forsyth, A. & Oakes, M. (2006). The Irvine Minnesota Inventory to Measure Built Environments. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(2), 153-159. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2005.09.018
• Dills, J. E., Rutt, C. D. & Mumford, K. G. (2012). Objectively Measuring Route-To-Park Walkability in Atlanta, Georgia. Environment and Behavior, 44(6), 841-860. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916511404409
• Dramstad, W. E., Olson, J. D. & Forman, R. T. T. (1996). Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and Land-Use Planning. Harvard University, Graduate School of Design, American Society of Landscape Architect, Washington, DC: Island Press.
• Ercan, İ. & Kan, İ. (2004). Ölçeklerde Güvenirlik ve Geçerlik. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 30 (3), 211-216.
• Eysenck, H. J. (1950). Criterion Analysis - An Applicatıon of The Hypothetico - Deductive Method to Factor Analysis. Psychological Review, (57), 38-53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057657
• Forman, R. T. T. (1995). Some General Principles of Landscape and Regional Ecology, Landscape Ecology, 10(3), 133-142. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133027
• Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
• Forsyth, A. (2015). What is a walkable place? The walkability debate in urban design. Urban Design International, 20(4), 274-292. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2015.22
• George, D. & Mallery, P. (2020). IBM SPSS Statistics 26 Step by Step, A Simple Guide and Reference. (16. Edition). New York and London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
• Giehl, M.W., Schneider, I.J., Corseuil, H.X., Benedetti, T.R., d'Orsi, E. (2012). Physical activity and environment perception among older adults: a population study in Florianópolis, Brazil. Rev Saude Publica, 46(3), 516-525. doi: 10.1590/s0034-89102012005000026
• Golan, Y., Wilkinson, N. L., Henderson, J. & Weverka, A. (2019). Gendered Walkability: Building A Daytime Walkability Index For Women. The Journal of Transport and Land Use, 12(1), 501-526. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2019.1472
• Guilford, J. P. (1946). New Standarts For Test Evolution. Educational and Psychological Measurement, (6), 427-438. doi:10.1177/001316444600600401
• Hair J. F., Black W.C., Babin B.J. & Anderson R.E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis: A Global Perspective. (7. Edition). Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River.
• Hoehner, C., (2011). Tools and Measure: Active Neigbourhood Checklist. From: https://activelivingresearch.org/sites/activelivingresearch.org/files/Protocol_ActiveNeighborhoodChecklist.v2.pdf Retrieved: 31.03.2021.
• Humpel N., Owen N., Iverson D., Leslie E., Bauman A. (2004). Perceived environment attributes, residential location and walking for particular purposes. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 26(2), 119-25. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2003.10.005
• Jacobs, J. (2011). Büyük Amerikan Şehirlerinin Ölümü ve Yaşamı. İstanbul : Metis Yayınları..
• Jaskiewicz, F. (1999). Pedestrian level of service based on trip quality. TRB Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium Conference Proceedings, 28-30 June, 1999, 1-14, Dallas, Texas. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec019/Ec019_g1.pdf Retrieved:12: 13.04.2021
• Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An Index of Factorial Simplicity. Pyschometrica, 39(1), 31-36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
• Krambeck, H., V. (2006). Global Walkability Index, Master Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Urban Studies and Planning and the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts, Cambridge.
• Krejcie, R. V. & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size For Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurment, (30), 607-610. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
• Kulkarni, V. (2017). ‘Objective and subjective analysis of walkability: Ladera Ranch, California, a case study’. Master Thesis, California State University, Department of Geography, Fullerton.
• Lizárraga, C., Martín-Blanco, C., Castillo-Pérez, I. & Chica-Olma, J. (2022). Do University Students’ Security Perceptions Influence Their Walking Preferences and TheirWalking Activity? A Case Study of Granada (Spain). Sustainability, 14(3), 1880. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031880
• Lo, R. H. (2009). Walkability: what is it?. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 2(2), 145–166. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17549170903092867
• Meeder, M., Aebi, U. & Weidmann, U. (2017). The influence of slope on walking activity and the pedestrian modal share. Transportation Research Procedia, 27 (2017), 141–147. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.12.095
• Nigro M., Petrelli M., Uspalyte Vitkuniene R. & Zilioniene, D. (2018). Understanding The Walkability Propensity. The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering, 13(2), 139-145. doi: 10.7250/bjrbe.2018-13.408
• T.C. Ortahisar Kaymakamlığı (2023). Ortahisar Tarihi. Erişim adresi: http://www.ortahisar.gov.tr/ortahisar-tarihi1. Erişim Tarihi: 10.04.2023.
• Reyer, M., Fina, S., Siedentop, S. & Schlicht, W. (2014). Walkability is Only Part of the Story: Walking for Transportation in Stuttgart, Germany. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, (11), 5849-5865. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110605849
• Robertson, K. A. (1993). Pedestrians and the American Downtown. The Town Planning Review. Liverpool University Press. 64(3); 273-286. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40113233 Erişim tarihi: 24.01.2021.
• Saelens, B. E. & Handy, S. L. (2008). Built Environment Correlates of Walking: A Review. Built Environment Correlates of Walking. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 40(7), 550–566. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31817c67a4
• Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., Black, J. B. & Chen, D. (2003). Neighborhood-Based Differences in Physical Activity: An Environment Scale Evaluation. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1552-1558. doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.9.1552
• Silitonga, S. (2020). Walkability; The Relationship of Walking Distance, Walking Time and Walking Speed. Jurnal Rekayasa Konstruksi Mekanika Sipil, 3(1), 19-26. https://doi.org/10.54367/jrkms.v3i1.699
• Southworth, M. (2005). Designing the Walkable City. Journal of Urban Planning Development, (131), 246-257. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2005)131:4(246)
• Speck, J. (2013). Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time. New York: North Point Press.
• Turkish Statistical Institude. (2020). https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Adrese-Dayali-Nufus-Kayit-Sistemi-Sonuclari-2020-37210 Erişim Tarihi: 28.12.2021.
• Yang, Y., Diez-Roux, A. V. (2012). Walking Distance by Trip Purpose and Population Subgroups, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43 (1), 11-19. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.03.015
• Yazıcıoğlu Halu, Z. (2010). ‘Kentsel mekân olarak caddelerin mekânsal karakterinin yürünebilirlik bağlamında irdelenmesi: Bağdat Caddesi Örneği’. Doctoral Thesis, İstanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, İstanbul.
• Zacharias, J. (2009). The Pedestrian Itinerary–Purposes, Environmental Factors and Path Decisions. Timmermans, H. (Ed.) Pedestrian Behavior, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, 283-306. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/9781848557512-013.