Evaluation of Urban Quality Regarding Disadvantaged Groups

Öz

The key indicator for the successful design of a healthy environment is that individuals living in the city can access public spaces and services, especially the disadvantaged, the elderly, children, pregnant women, disabled, baby carriages. In this study, the relationship of disadvantaged groups with the urban environment is grouped under three main headings. In the context of Urban Environment Quality and Comfort, in order to facilitate the adaptation of individuals to the urban environment, it is necessary to provide an environment with a convenient housing design, where their mobility is supported, compatible with the topography, safe, daily needs are met within walking distance. Within the framework of Public Transportation and Access, accessibility to all types of public spaces should be ensured by public transportation that are affordable, easy to use, safe and multiple options. Neighborhood and Social Relations, on the other hand, are possible if individuals live in an urban environment where participation in society and social activities is encouraged, and where they can see themselves as a part of the society. As a result, these factors can be accepted as the main keys to the active participation and integration of disadvantaged groups in social life.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Quality of urban life
• public health
• accessibility
• disadvantaged group

Dezavantajlı Gruplar Açısından Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesinin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Sağlıklı bir çevrenin başarılı bir şekilde oluşturulabilmesindeki en temel gösterge, kentte yaşayan tüm bireylerin özellikle dezavantajlı olarak nitelendirebileceğimiz, mobilitesi kısıtlı ve çevreye bağımlı olan yaşlılar, çocuklar, hamileler, özürlüler, bebek arabası ve yük taşıyanların kamusal alanlara ve hizmetlere erişebilmesi aynı zamanda eşit kullanım hakkına sahip olabilmesidir. Bu çalışmada dezavantajlı grupların kentsel çevre ile ilişkisi üç temel başlıkta toplanmıştır. Kentsel Çevre Kalitesi ve Konfor (K1) bağlamında bireylerin kentsel çevreye adapte olmalarının kolaylaştırılması için hareketliliklerinin desteklendiği, topoğrafya ile uyumlu, güvenli, gündelik ihtiyaçlarının yürüme mesafesinde karşılandığı, kullanışlı konut tasarımına sahip bir çevrenin sunulması gerekmektedir. Kamu Ulaşımı ve Erişimi (K2) çerçevesinde her tip kamusal alana erişilebilirliği uygun fiyatlı, kolay kullanılabilen, güvenli ve farklı seçenekler sunan kamu ulaşım türleri ile sağlanmalıdır. Komşuluk ve Sosyal ilişkiler (K3) ise bireylerin topluma ve toplumsal aktivitelere katılımın teşvik edildiği, kendilerini toplumun bir parçası olarak görebildikleri kentsel çevre de yaşamaları ile mümkündür. Sonuç olarak bu etkenler dezavantajlı grupların toplumsal hayata aktif katılımın ve uyumun aynı zamanda sağlıklarının temel anahtarları kabul edilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kentsel yaşam kalitesi
• toplum sağlığı
• erişilebilirlik
• dezavantajlı gruplar

Kaynakça

1. Aguiar, B. ve Macário, R. (2017). The need for an Elderly centred mobility policy. Transportation research procedia, 25, 4355-4369.
2. Ambrey, C. ve Fleming, C. (2014). Public greenspace and life satisfaction in urban Australia. Urban Studies, 51(6), 1290-1321.
3. Antonucci, T. C., Ajrouch, K. J. ve Birditt, K. (2006). Social relations in the third age: Assessing strengths and challenges using the convoy model. Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics, 26(1), 193-209.
4. Astell-Burt, T., Feng, X. ve Kolt, G. S. (2013). Mental health benefits of neighbourhood green space are stronger among physically active adults in middle-to-older age: evidence from 260,061 Australians. Preventive medicine, 57(5), 601-606.
5. Balfour, J. L. ve Kaplan, G. A. (2002). Neighborhood environment and loss of physical function in older adults: evidence from the Alameda County Study. American journal of epidemiology, 155(6), 507-515.
6. Banister, D. ve Bowling, A. (2004). Quality of life for the elderly: the transport dimension. Transport policy, 11(2), 105-115.
7. Bahrainy, H. ve Khosravi, H. (2013). The impact of urban design features and qualities on walkability and health in under-construction environments: the case of Hashtgerd New Town in Iran. Cities, 31, 17-28.
8. Bayar, R. ve Türkoğlu, H. (2021). The relationship between living environment and daily life routines of older adults. A/Z ITU J. Fac. Archit, 18, 29-43.

9. Beard, J., Biggs, S., Bloom, D. E., Fried, L. P., Hogan, P. R., Kalache, A. ve Olshansky, S. J. (2012). Global population ageing: peril or promise? (No. 8912). Program on the Global Demography of Aging.
10. Berkman, L. F. ve Glass, T. (2000). Social integration, social networks, social support, and health. Social epidemiology, 1(6), 137-173.
11. Broome, K., Worrall, L., Fleming, J. ve Boldy, D. (2012). Evaluation of flexible route bus transport for older people. Transport Policy, 21, 85-91.
12. Bukov, A., Maas, I. ve Lampert, T. (2002). Social participation in very old age: cross-sectional and longitudinal findings from BASE. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57(6), P510-P517.
13. Burns, V. F., Lavoie, J. P. ve Rose, D. (2012). Revisiting the role of neighbourhood change in social exclusion and inclusion of older people. Journal of aging research, 2012.
14. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P. L. ve Handy, S. L. (2010). Neighborhood design and the accessibility of the elderly: an empirical analysis in Northern California. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 4(6), 347-371.
15. Ceylan, H., Ayar, M. ve Günel, Z. (2015). Küresel ve yerel perspektiften yaşlılara yönelik sosyal politikalar ve uygulamalar. İstanbul’da Yaşlanmak: İstanbul’da Yaşlıların Mevcut Durumu Araştırması içinde (61-107). İstanbul: Açılım Kitap.
16. Charness, N. (2003). Living environments and mobility in old age in Germany and the United States. Publication of Urban Institute.
17. Clark, W. A. v. ve Onaka, J. L. (1983). Life cycle and housing adjustment as explanations of residential mobility. Urban Studies, 20(1), 47–57.
18. Connerly, C. ve Marans, R. W. (1988). Neighborhood quality: a description and analysis of indicators. Handbook of housing and the built environment in the United States, 37-61.
19. Cummins, R. A. (2000). Objective and subjective quality of life: an interactive model. Social Indicators Research, 52(1), 55–72.
20. Jungblut, J. M. ve Anderson, R. (2019). Age and quality of life: who are the winners and losers?.
21. Ferrer, S., Ruiz, T. ve 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.
22. Finlay, J. M. ve Kobayashi, L. C. (2018). Social isolation and loneliness in later life: A parallel convergent mixed-methods case study of older adults and their residential contexts in the Minneapolis metropolitan area, USA. Social Science & Medicine, 208, 25–33.
23. Forrest, R. ve Lee, J. (2003). Housing and social change: East-West perspectives. Routledge. Garb, Y., Kamp, I. V., Kuijpers, M., Ourednicek, M. ve Sykora, L. (2007). Special deconcentration of economic land use and quality of life in European metropolitan areas, Quality of Life Indicators Report (D02).
24. Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: using public space. Island press.
25. Howden-Chapman, P., Signal, L. ve Crane, J. (1999). Housing and health in older people: ageing in place. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 14-30.
26. Hunter, R. H., Sykes, K., Lowman, S. G., Duncan, R., Satariano, W. A. ve Belza, B. (2011). Environmental and policy change to support healthy aging. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 23(4), 354–371.
27. İlgar, L. (2008). Yaşlılık dönemi sosyal özellikleri ve serbest zaman etkinlikleri. Psikolojik, sosyal ve bedensel açıdan yaşlılık, 63-96.
28. Iwarsson, S. ve Ståhl, A. (2003). Accessibility, usability and universal design—positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(2), 57–66.
29. Jun, H. J. ve Hur, M. (2015). The relationship between walkability and neighborhood social environment: The importance of physical and perceived walkability. Applied Geography, 62, 115–124.
30. Kim, J. (2010). Neighborhood disadvantage and mental health: The role of neighborhood disorder and social relationships. Social science research, 39(2), 260-271.
31. Kim, S. ve Ulfarsson, G. F. (2004). Travel mode choice of the elderly: Effects of personal, household, neighborhood, and trip characteristics. Transportation Research Record, 1894(1), 117–126.
32. Koca, T. ve Çolpan Erkan, N. (2019). Yaşam Kalitesinin Arttırılmasında Bir Etmen: Mekânsal Güvenlik Ölçütleri. Megaron, 14.
33. Koca, Ö. (2006). Sıcak kuru ve sıcak nemli iklim bölgelerinde enerji etkin yerleşme ve bina tasarım ilkelerinin belirlenmesine yönelik yaklaşım (Doktora Tezi). Erişim adresi: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
34. Kochera, A., Straight, A. ve Guterbock, T. (2005). Beyond 50.05: A report to the nation on livable communities-creating environments for successful aging.
35. Khosravi, H., Gharai, F. ve Taghavi, S. (2015). The impact of local built environment attributes on the elderly sociability. Iran University of Science & Technology, 25(1), 21-30.
36. Kweon, B.-S., Sullivan, W. C., ve Wiley, A. R. (1998). Green common spaces and the social integration of inner-city older adults. Environment and Behaviour, 30(6), 832–858.
37. Lang, J. E., Anderson, L., James, L., Sharkey, J., Belansky, E., Bryant, L., ... ve Healthy Aging Research Network Writing Group. (2006). Peer Reviewed: The Prevention Research Centers Healthy Aging Research Network. Preventing chronic disease, 3(1).
38. Lawton, M. P. ve Nahemow, L. (1973). Ecology and the aging process.
39. Landorf, C., Brewer, G. ve Sheppard, L. A. (2008). The urban environment and sustainable ageing: critical issues and assessment indicators. Local Environment, 13(6), 497–514.
40. Laws, G. (1993). “The land of old age”: society’s changing attitudes toward urban built environments for elderly people. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 83(4), 672–693.
41. Lee, D. (2007). Designing cities for the elderly (Doktora Tezi,Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Erişim adresi: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/40124
42. Lee, T. ve Marans, R. W. (1980). Objective and subjective indicators: effects of scale discordance on interrelationships. Social Indicators Research, 8(1), 47-64.
43. Lehning, A., Chun, Y. ve Scharlach, A. (2007). Structural barriers to developing ‘aging-friendly’communities. Public Policy and Aging Report, 17(3), 15–20.
44. Leyden, K. M. (2003). Social capital and the built environment: the importance of walkable neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1546–1551.
45. Mahmood, A. ve Keating, N. (2012). Towards inclusive built environments for older adults. From exclusion to inclusion in old age: a global challenge, 145-162.
46. Marans, R. W. ve Rodgers, W. (1975). Toward an understanding of community satisfaction. Metropolitan America in contemporary perspective, 1, 299-352.
47. Marans, R. W. ve Couper, M. (2000, March). Measuring the quality of community life: a program for longitudinal and comparative international research. The Second International Conference on Quality of life in Cities. Bildiriler içinde (Vol. 2, s. 267-276).
48. Marans, R. W. (2003). Understanding environmental quality through quality of life studies: the 2001 DAS and its use of subjective and objective indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1-2), 73-83.
49. McDermott-Levy, R., Kolanowski, A. M., Fick, D. M. ve Mann, M. E. (2019). Addressing the health risks of climate change in older adults. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 45(11), 21–29.
50. Muhammed Ammar Sezgin’in fotoğrafları (2019). Kişisel fotoğraf arşivi.Istanbul
51. Ostroff, E. ve Preiser, W. (2001). Universal design handbook. MacGraw Hill: Boston,MA, USA.
52. Panter, J. R., Jones, A. P., van Sluijs, E. M., Griffin, S. J. ve Wareham, N. J. (2011). Environmental and psychological correlates of older adult's active commuting. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 43(7).
53. Pangobourne, K., Aditjandra, P. T. ve Nelson, J. D. (2009). New technology and quality of life for older people: The health and transport dimensions. 16. ITS dünya kongresi, Bildiriler içinde, Stockholm.
54. Parra, D. C., Gomez, L. F., Sarmiento, O. L., Buchner, D., Brownson, R., Schimd, T., ... ve Lobelo, F. (2010). Perceived and objective neighborhood environment attributes and health related quality of life among the elderly in Bogota, Colombia. Social science & medicine, 70(7), 1070-1076.
55. Rosenbloom, S. (2009). Meeting transportation needs in an aging-friendly community. Generations, 33(2), 33–43.
56. Ross, C. E. ve Mirowsky, J. (2001). Neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and health. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 258–276.
57. Salmen, J. P. S. (2001). A home for the next 50years: remodelling foraging baby boomers demonstrates universal design in arts and crafts detailing. Principles of Universal Design, 26.1-26.6.
58. Seval Palteki’nin fotoğrafı (2019). Kişisel fotoğraf arşivi. İstanbul
59. Siedlecki, K. L., Salthouse, T. A., Oishi, S. ve Jeswani, S. (2014). The relationship between social support and subjective well-Being across Age. Social Indicators Research, 117(2), 561–576.
60. Singh, A. ve Misra, N. (2009). Loneliness, depression and sociability in old age. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 18(1), 51.
61. Story, M. F. (2001). Principles of universal design. Universal Design Handbook.
62. Sundquist, K., Eriksson, U., Kawakami, N., Skog, L., Ohlsson, H. ve Arvidsson, D. (2011). Neighborhood walkability, physical activity, and walking behavior: the Swedish Neighborhood and Physical Activity (SNAP) study. Social Science & Medicine, 72(8), 1266–1273.
63. Szalai, A. (1980). The meaning of comparative research on the quality of life. The quality of life, 7-21.
64. Şentürk, M. ve Altan, R. B. (2015). Giriş: İstanbul’da Yaşlıların Mevcut Durumu Araştırması. İstanbul’da Yaşlanmak İstanbul’da Yaşlıların Mevcut Durumu Araştırması içinde, Editör: Murat Şentürk, Harun Ceylan, 19, 34. Türkoğlu, H. D., Bölen F., Baran K. P, ve Marans, R.W., (2006), Measuring Urban Quality of Life in Istanbul, Istanbul Metropolitan Planning Office, Housing and Urban Quality of Life Working Group, (2), İstanbul
65. Türkoğlu H. (2018) Residential Satisfaction as Contribution to Urban Quality of Life, Healty Cities Congress, Bildiri içinde, Belfast.
66. UN-Habitat. (2001). Sustainable cities programme 1990-2000: A decade of united nations support to broad-based participatory management of urban development. Nairobi: UN-Habitat.
67. Walton, D. ve Sunseri, S. (2010). Factors influencing the decision to drive or walk short distances to public transport facilities. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 4(4), 212–226
68. Wen, C., Albert, C. ve von Haaren, C. (2018). The elderly in green spaces: Exploring requirements and preferences concerning nature-based recreation. Sustainable Cities and Society, 38, 582–593.
69. World Health Organization (WHO). (2002). Active ageing: A policy framework (No. WHO/NMH/NPH/02.8). World Health Organization.
70. Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J. ve Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough.’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244.
71. Yirmibesoglu, F., Ertekin, Ö. ve Berkoz, L. (2015). Participation of the elderly in social and physical activities, case of Istanbul. The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention, 2(10), 1626–1639.
72. Yukay Yüksel, M., Dinçer, F., Tezcan, H. ve Lale, Z. (2014). Yaşlıların boş zaman değerlendirmesi üzerine bir inceleme. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 10, 2146-9199.