Istanbul Residents’ Perceptions of the Use of Green Spaces by Syrian Immigrants

Öz

The aim of this study is to determine the perceptions of the people of Istanbul regarding Syrian immigrants and their common use of urban green spaces. The causes of conflicts that Istanbul residents and Syrians immigrants have experienced in green spaces are also addressed. An exploratory sequential design was used, being one of the mixed methods in which qualitative and quantitative approaches are used together. Semi-structured interviews and content analysis were conducted for the qualitative part of the study. For the quantitative part, data were collected from 389 people in Istanbul with a survey consisting of Likert-type scale questions. Explanatory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on the obtained data-set. As a result, it was found that Istanbul’s citizens have problems with Syrian immigrants in urban green spaces due to differences in activities, they expect Syrians to speak Turkish in mutual communication, and they do not want to interact with this group due to their negative attitude towards Syrian immigrants. More detailed research should be conducted to reduce the conflict between these groups. In addition, this study reveals that conflicts have increased due to the lack of green spaces, and an increase in green spaces may be proposed as a solution.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• immigrants
• urban green spaces
• conflict
• perception

Kaynakça

1. Aksu G., A., Tağıl Ş., Musaoğlu N., Canatanoğlu E., S., Uzun A. (2022). Landscape Ecological Evaluation of Cultural Patterns for the Istanbul Urban Landscape. Sustainability. 14(23):16030.
2. Altunışık, R., Coşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S., Yıldırım, E. (2010). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri SPSS Uygulamalı, Sakarya Yayıncılık, Sakarya.
3. Bal Kızılhan S. (2019). ‘Yerli’lerin gözüyle Suriyeli mülteciler: Ankara Örnek mahallesi, Tez (Yüksek lisans), Ankara Üniversite Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
4. Beckley, T. (1994). Community stability and the relationship between economic and social well being in forest dependent communities, Society and Natural, 8, 261-266.
5. Buijs, A., E., Elands, B., H., M., Langers, F. (2009). No Wilderness for İmmigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences, Landscape and urban planning, 91, 113-123.
6. Byrne, J. (2012). When green is white: The cultural politics of race, nature and social exclusion in a Los Angeles urban national park, Geoforum, 43 (3), 595-611.
7. Dai, D. (2011). Racial/Ethnic and Socioeconomic Disparities in Urban Green Space Accessibility: Where to Intervene, Landscape and Urban Planning, 102(4), 234-244.
8. Dirik, H. (2001). Kent Ormancılığı ve Yeşil Kuşak Tesisleri, Orman Mühendisliği Dergisi, Yıl:38, Sayı:5, 16-23, Ankara.

9. Erdoğan, M., M. (2017). ‘‘Kopuş’’tan ‘’Uyum’’a Kent Mültecileri: Suriyeli Mülteciler ve Belediyelerin Süreç Yönetimi: İstanbul Örneği. Marmara Belediyeler Birliği Kültür, İstanbul, ISBN: 978-605-83293-4-8.
10. Gentin, S. (2011). Outdoor Recreation and Ethnicity İn Europe, Urban forestry & Urban greening, 10, 153-161.
11. Gentin, S., Pitkȁnen, K., Chondromatidou, A.,M., Prӕstholm, S., Dolling, A., Palsdottir, A., M. (2019). Nature-based integration of immigrants in Europe: A review, Urban forestry & Urban greening, 43, 1-8.
12. IOM Uluslararası Göç Örgütü (2009). Uluslararası Göç Hukuku Göç Terimleri Sözlüğü, (ed.) Bülent Çiçekli. Cenevre. http://www.goc.gov.tr/files/files/goc_terimleri_sozlugu.pdf
13. IOM Uluslararası Göç Örgütü (2019). https://dtm.iom.int/reports/turkey-baseline-assessment-istanbul-field-observation-report-may-july-2019
14. Jay, M., Schraml, U. (2009). Understanding the role of urban forests for migrants – Uses, perception and integrative potential, Urban forestry & Urban greening, 8, 283-294.
15. Kabaklı Çimen, L., Ersoy Quadir, S. (2018). Türk vatandaşlarının Suriyeli sığınmacılarla ilgili görüşleri (Konya ili örneği), Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi, 53(2), 327-345.
16. Kloek, M., E., Buijs, A., E., Boersema, J., J., Schouten, M., G., C. (2015). ‘Nature Lovers’, ‘Social Animals’, ‘Quiet Seekers’ and ‘Activity Lovers’: Participation of young adult immigrants and non-immigrants in outdoor recreation in Netherlands, Journal of outdoor recreation and tourism, 12, 47-58.
17. Konijnendijk, C. C. (2005). New Perspectives for Urban Forests: Introducing Wild Woodlands, Wild Urban Woodlands: New Perspectives for Urban Forestry, Ingo Kowarik, Stefan Körner- Editors, ISBN 3-540-23912-X.
18. Kurtuluş, K. (2004). Pazarlama Artaştırmaları, Genisletilmis 7. Baskı, İstanbul Üniversitesi İsletme Fakültesi, Literatür Yayıncılık, Subat, ISBN: 975–04–0250–2, İstanbul.
19. Makhzoumi, J.M. (2002). Landscape in the Middle East : an inquiry. Landscape Researches, 27, 213-228. Marshall, M., Stolle, D. (2004). Race and the City.Neighborhood context and the development of generalized trust, Political Behaviour, 26, 125-154.
20. Mustapa, N., D., Maliki, N., Z., Aziz, N., F., Hamzah, A. (2019). The differences of nature experiences between urban and rural children, Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 14(4), 225-237.
21. Nesdale, D., Todd, P. (2000). Effect of contract on intercultural acceptance : a field study, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 341-360.
22. Öner, N., Ayan, S., Sıvacıoğlu, A., İmal, B. (2007). Kent ormancılığı ve kent ormanlarının çevresel etkileri, Kastamonu Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2). 190-203.
23. Peters, K., Elands, B., Buijs, A. (2010). Social integrations in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion?, Urban forestry & Urban greening, 9, 93-100.
24. Putnam, R. (2000). In: Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American Community, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
25. Refugees Association (2020). https://multeciler.org.tr/?gclid=CjwKCAiAgc-ABhA7EiwAjev-j9l9o7FGdLsKR9Ru9KVtd-rtqPguNapvpcvMvR0DSQUfO35t2IACRBoCm2gQAvD_BwE
26. Seeland, K., Dübendorfer, S., Hansmann, R. (2009). Making friends in Zurich’s urban forests and parks: the role of public green space for social inclusion of youths from different cultures. Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 10-17.
27. Şafak, İ. (2012). Development of performance evaluation scale for forest engineers using confirmatory factor analysis method (Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi ile Orman Mühendisleri için Performans Değerlendirme Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi). African Journal of Agricultural Research, 7 (7), pp: 1198-1205. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR11.1765
28. Tekeli, İ., Erder, L. (1978). İç Göçler, Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları.
29. Tekin, İ. (2015). Karma Yöntem Araştırmaları, https://prezi.com/3cvmzy7twkg5/karmayontem-arastirmalari/ , (Visiting date: 11.04.2020).
30. UN News Global Perspective Human Stories, (2022). https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/12/1131822#:~:text=More%20than%20280%20million%20people,on%20Sunday%2C%20International%20Migrants%20Day.
31. UNCHR (2019). https://www.unhcr.org/tr/22075-dunya-capinda-yerinden-edilmis-kisi-sayisi-70-milyonu-gecerken-bm-multeciler-yuksek-komiseri-duruma-mudahale-icin-daha-guclu-bir-dayanisma-cagrisinda-bulunuyor.html
32. Van den Born, R.J.G., Lenders, R.H.J., De Groot, W.T., Huijsman, E. (2001). The new biophilia: an exploration of visions of nature in western countries. Environmental Conservation, 28, 65-75.
33. Van Koppen, C.S.A. (2000). Resource, arcadia, lifeworld. Nature concepts in environmental sociology. Sociologia Ruralis, 40, 300-318.
34. Woolley, H., Amin, N. (1999). Pakistani teenagers use of public open space in Sheffield, Managing Leisure, 4, 156-167.
35. World Cities Culture Forum (2018), http://www.worldcitiescultureforum.com/data/of-public-greenspace-parks-and-gardens, (Visiting date: 02.01.2021)
36. Yılmaz, F., Gültekin, L., Acar, S., Meydan, M., C., Işık, M., Bilen Kazancık, L., Özsan, M., E. (2019). İlçelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması Araştırması SEGE-2017, Kalkınma Ajansları Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara, ISBN : 978-605-7679-01-7.