Bisiklet Kullanımını Etkileyen Sosyo-Kültürel Faktörlerin Belirlenmesi: Denizli Kenti Örneği

Öz

Halkın bisiklet kullanımına bakış açısını değiştirmede sadece bisiklet kullanımının yaygınlaştırılması politikaları değil, aynı zamanda bisiklet altyapı sistemlerinin oluşturulması ve bisiklet kullanımını özendirici çalışmaların yaygınlaştırılması da oldukça etkilidir. Bu nedenle kentlerde bisikletin ulaşım amacıyla kullanımını etkileyen karmaşık ve çok faktörlü bir etkileşim söz konusudur. Bu faktörler, yerel, bölgesel ve ulusal politika yapıcıları ile özel ve sivil toplum kuruluşları tarafından çıkarılan yasal düzenlemeler, raporlar, stratejiler, plan ve projeler ile kentin sahip olduğu doğal, sosyo-kültürel ve ekonomik özellikler, kullanıcı tutum ve davranışları şeklinde sıralanabilir. Bu çalışmada sürdürülebilir ulaşım türü olarak görülen bisikletli ulaşımın yaygınlaşmasında temel unsurlardan biri olan sosyo-kültürel faktörlerin Denizli kenti özelinde belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla Denizli kent merkezini oluşturan Merkezefendi (410 kişi) ve Pamukkale (453 kişi) ilçelerinde 863 kişi ile yüzyüze bir anket çalışması yapılmış ve halkın bisiklet kullanımı üzerinde etkisi olduğu düşünülen sosyo-kültürel faktörler belirlenmiştir. Yapılan istatistiksel analiz sonuçlarına göre bu faktörlerin; arkadaş baskısı, fiziksel görünüş ve toplum baskısı olmak üzere üç alt faktör altında birleştiği görülmektedir. Çalışma sonunda bu faktörlerin etkisinin azaltılmasıyla Denizli kentinde bisiklet kullanımının yaygınlaşmasına katkı sağlayacak bir takım öneriler geliştirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Denizli
• Bisiklet kullanımı
• bisiklet altyapısı
• sosyo-kültürel etki

Defining Socio-Cultural Factors Affecting Cycling: The Case of Denizli

Öz

Not only policies to popularize bicycle use, but also the creation of bicycle infrastructure systems and the dissemination of activities that encourage bicycle use are very effective in changing the public's perspective on bicycle use. Therefore, there is a complex and multi-factor interaction affecting the use of bicycles for transportation purposes in cities. These factors include legal regulations, reports, strategies, plans and projects issued by local, regional, and national policymakers, and NGOs, as well as the natural, socio-cultural, and economic features of the city, user attitudes, and behaviours. This study aims to identify socio-cultural factors, one of the key elements to increase bicycle transportation seen as an sustainable mobility type, specifically in the city of Denizli. For this purpose, a face-to-face survey was conducted with 863 people in the districts of Merkezefendi (410 people) and Pamukkale (453 people), which constitute the city center of Denizli, and socio-cultural factors that were thought to have an impact on the public's use of bicycles were determined. According to the statistical analysis results, these factors converge under three sub-factors: peer pressure, physical appearance, and societal pressure. At the end of the study, recommendations were developed to contribute to the proliferation of bicycle usage in Denizli by reducing the impact of these factors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Denizli
• Cycling
• bicycle infrastructure
• socio-cultural influence

Kaynakça

1. Abraham, J.E., McMillan, S., Brownlee, A.T. and Hunt, J.D. (2002). Investigation of cycling sensitivities. In Transportation Research Board Annual Conference, Washington, DC. https://moam.info/investigation-of-cycling-sensitivities_5a2ac9f71723dd27aedf08ca.html [Son erişim tarihi: 08.03.2022].
2. Ahmed, F., Rose, G., Figliozzi, M. and Jakob, C. (2012). Commuter cyclist’s sensitivity to changes in weather: Insight from two cities with different climatic conditions. In Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, USA.
3. Baş, T. (2003). Anket: anket nasıl hazırlanır?: anket nasıl uygulanır?. Seçkin yayıncılık.
4. Bisiklet Yolları Yönetmeliği. (2019). Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı’ndan Resmi Gazete Sayı: 30976, Tarih: 12 Aralık 2019 [Son erişim tarihi: 15.03.2022] https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2019/12/20191212-1.htm.
5. Buehler, R. and Pucher, J. (2012). Cycling to work in 90 large American cities: new evidence on the role of bike paths and lanes. Transportation, 39: 409-432.
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2017). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Pegem Akademi, 23. Baskı. Ankara, 213 s.
7. DBB, (Denizli Büyükşehir Belediyesi). 2017a. Denizli ulaşım ana planı sonuç raporu. https://denizli.bel.tr/Default.aspx?k=content&id=19087 [Son erişim tarihi: 15.03.2021].
8. Dill, J. and Gliebe, J. (2008). Understanding and measuring bicycling behavior: A focus on travel time and route choice. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=usp_fac [Son erişim tarihi: 8.03.2022]

9. Dill, J. (2009). Bicycling for transportation and health: the role of infrastructure. J. Public Health Policy., 30: 95-110.
10. Emond, C. and Handy, S.L. (2012). Factors associated with bicycling to high school: insights from Davis, CA. Journal of Transport Geography, 20: 71-79.
11. Ewing, R. and Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: a meta analysis. J. Am. Plan. Assoc., 76(3): 265-294.
12. Faghih-Imani, A., Eluru, N., El-Geneidy, A.M., Rabbat, M. and Haq, U. (2014). How land-use and urban form impact bicycle flows: evidence from the bicycle-sharing system (BIXI) in Montreal. Journal of Transport Geography, 41: 306-314.
13. Flynn, B.S., Dana, G.S., Sears, J. and Aultman-Hall, L. (2012). Weather factor impacts on commuting to work by bicycle. Preventive medicine, 54(2): 122-124.
14. Handy, S.L. and Xing, Y. (2011). Factors correlated with bicycle commuting: A study in six small US cities. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 5(2): 91-110.
15. Heesch, K.C., Giles-Corti, B. and Turrell, G. (2014). Cycling for transport and recreation: associations with socio-economic position, environmental perceptions, and psychological disposition. Preventive medicine, 63: 29-35.
16. Heinen, E., Maat, K. and Van Wee, B. (2011). The role of attitudes toward characteristics of bicycle commuting on the choice to cycle to work over various distances. Transportation research part D: transport and environment, 16(2): 102-109.
17. Koglin, T. (2015). Vélomobility and the politics of transport planning. GeoJournal, 80(4), 569-586.
18. Konstantinidou, M. and Spyropoulou, I. (2017). Factors affecting the propensity to cycle - the case of Thessaloniki. 3rd Conference on Sustainable Urban Mobility, 3rd CSUM 2016, 26-27 May 2016, Volos, Greece. Transportation Research Procedia, 24(2017): 123-130.
19. Lanzendorf, M. and Busch-Geertsema, A. (2014). The cycling boom in large German cities-Empirical evidence for successful cycling campaigns. Transport policy, 36: 26-33.
20. Li, Z.B., Wang, W., Shan, X.F., Jin, J., Lu, J. and Yang, C. (2010). Analysis of bicycle passing events for LOS evaluation on physically separated bicycle roadways in China. In: Presented at 89rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC.
21. Li, Z., Wang, W., Liu, P. and Ragland, D.R. (2012). Physical environments influencing bicyclists’ perception of comfort on separated and on-street bicycle facilities. Transportation Research D: Transport and Environment, 17(3): 256-261.
22. Ma, L. and Dill, J. (2015). Associations between the objective and perceived built environment and bicycling for transportation. Journal of Transport & Health, 2(2): 248-255.
23. Mansuroğlu, S. ve Dağ, V. (2019). Antalya Örneğinde Sürdürülebilir Kentiçi Ulaşımda Halkın Bisiklet Kullanımı ve Bisiklet Yollarına Yaklaşımlarının Belirlenmesi. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırmalar Projesi (BAP) Sonuç Raporu (Basılmamış). Proje No: FBA-2018-3316, Antalya.
24. Mansuroğlu, S. ve Dağ, V. (2020). Antalya Örneğinde Turizm Kentlerinde Bisikletli Ulaşım Güzergahı Olanaklarının Değerlendirilmesi. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 22 (2), 341-353.
25. Mansuroğlu, S. ve Dağ, V. (2021). Kentiçi Ulaşımda Bisiklet Kullanımı ve Bisiklet Yolları Konusunda Kullanıcı Yaklaşımları: Antalya Örneği, Kent Akademisi, 14 (44): 1, 90-101.
26. Meng, M., Koh, P.P., Wong, Y.D. and Zhong, Y.H. (2014). Influences of urban characteristics on cycling: Experiences of four cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 13: 78-88.
27. NACTO, (National Association of City Transportation Officials). (2014). Urban bikeway design guide. Island Press. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ [Son erişim tarihi: 20.02.2022].
28. Nielsen, T.A.S., Olafsson, A.S., Carstensen, T.A. and Skov-Petersen, H. (2013). Environmental correlates of cycling: Evaluating urban form and location effects based on Danish micro-data. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 22: 40-44.
29. Providelo, J.K. and Sanches, S.P. (2011). Roadway and traffic characteristics for bicycling. Transportation, 38(5): 765-777.
30. Pucher, J. and Buehler, R. (2006). Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: A comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies. Transport Policy, 13: 265-279.
31. Pucher, J., Dill, J., Handy, S. (2010). Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review. Preventive Medicine 50: 106-125.
32. Schepers, P., Twisk, D., Fishman, E., Fyhri, A. and Jensen, A. (2017). The Dutch road to a high level of cycling safety. Safety science, 92: 264-273.
33. Song, Y., Preston, J., Ogilvie, D. and iConnect Consortium. (2017). New walking and cycling infrastructure and modal shift in the UK: a quasi-experimental panel study. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 95: 320-333.
34. Stewart, G., Anokye, N.K. and Pokhrel, S. (2015). What interventions increase commuter cycling? A systematic review. BMJ open, 5(8): e007945.
35. Tukey, J. W. (1949). Comparing ındividual means in the analyses of variance. Biometrics, 5, 99-114.
36. Tumlin, J. (2012). Sustainable Transportation Planning: Tools for Creating Vibrant, Healthy, and Resilient Communities. Wiley series in sustainable design, 16. p 332, USA.
37. Verma, M., Rahul, T. M., Reddy, P.V. and Verma, A. (2016). The factors influencing bicycling in the Bangalore city. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 89: 29-40.
38. Yang, L., Sahlqvist, S., McMinn, A., Griffin, S.J. and Ogilvie, D. (2010). Interventions to promote cycling: systematic review. Bmj, 341.
39. Xing, Y., Handy, S.L. and Mokhtarian, P.L. (2010). Factors associated with proportions and miles of bicycling for transportation and recreation in six small US cities. Transportation research part D: Transport and Environment, 15(2): 73-81.
40. Zahabi, S.A.H., Chang, A., Miranda-Moreno, L.F. and Patterson, Z. (2016). Exploring the link between the neighborhood typologies, bicycle infrastructure and commuting cycling over time and the potential impact on commuter GHG emissions. Transportation research part D: transport and environment, 47: 89-103.