Quality of Life Index: Istanbul 2020

Öz

This paper is based on a quality of life index study comparing 39 districts in Istanbul. The study is the third of a series of studies, where the first study was conducted and published in 2011 and the second in 2016. The results of the periodic research reveal the transformation of districts in Istanbul in terms of quality of life. The study, carried out on the same methods and parameters, aims to monitor the quality of life at the district level in Istanbul over the years. The weighted average method was used in the analysis made with the district-level 2020 data in Istanbul. According to the index results, Kadıköy, Beşiktaş, Bakırköy, Üsküdar, and Şişli are the districts with the highest quality of life, while Gaziosmanpaşa, Esenler, Sultanbeyli, Sultangazi, and Arnavutköy districts are in the last place. As a result of the clustering study, when evaluated in terms of 5 clusters, it is observed that 4.8 percent of the population of Istanbul lives in the first level, which is the highest quality of life, while 15.9% are second, 31.5% are third, 36.2% are fourth, and 11.6% are in districts with a fifth level of quality of life.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Quality of Life
• Quality of Life Index
• Social and Economic Index
• Weighted Average Method

Proje Numarası

SBG-2022-38497

Yaşam Kalitesi Endeksi: İstanbul 2020

Öz

Bu çalışma ilki 2011 yılında ikincisi 2016 yılında yayınlanan İstanbul’da 39 ilçeyi karşılaştıran yaşam kalitesi endeksinin güncel verilerle yenilendiği ve geçmiş yıllarla karşılaştırmaların yapıldığı bir araştırmadır. Periyodik olarak yapılan araştırmanın sonuçları İstanbul’daki ilçelerin yaşam kalitesi açısından dönüşümünü ortaya koymaktadır. Aynı yöntem ve parametreler üzerinden gerçekleştirilen çalışma yıllar itibariyle İstanbul’da ilçeler düzeyinde yaşam kalitesinin izlenmesini hedeflemektedir. İstanbul’da ilçe düzeyinde 2020 verileri ile yapılan analizde ağırlıklandırılmış ortalama yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Endeks sonuçlarına göre Kadıköy, Beşiktaş, Bakırköy, Üsküdar ve Şişli yaşam kalitesinin en yüksek olduğu ilçeler iken, Gaziosmanpaşa, Esenler, Sultanbeyli, Sultangazi ve Arnavutköy ilçeleri sıralamada sonlarda yer almıştır. Yapılan kümeleme çalışması sonucunda 5 küme açısından değerlendirildiğinde, İstanbul nüfusunun yüzde 4,8’inin en yüksek yaşam kalitesi olan birinci düzeyde yaşadığı gözlenirken, %15,9’u ikinci, %31,5’i üçüncü, %36,2’si dördüncü ve %11,6’sı beşinci düzeyde yaşam kalitesine sahip ilçelerde bulunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yaşam Kalitesi
• Yaşam Kalitesi Endeksi
• Sosyal Ve Ekonomik Endeks
• Ağırlıklandırılmış Ortalama Yöntemi

Destekleyen Kurum

İÜ BAP

Proje Numarası

SBG-2022-38497

Teşekkür

Bu çalışma İstanbul Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Birimi tarafından desteklenmiştir. Proje No: SBG-2022-38497. Araştırma İÜ Şehir Politikaları Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi’nde yürütülmüştür.

Kaynakça

1. AFAD (2020). Ministry Disaster And Emergency Management Presidency. Retrieved from https:// en.afad.gov.tr/ google scholar
2. Albrechts, L., Balducci, A., & Hillier, J. (2016). Situated practices of strategic planning. An international perspective. Routledge. google scholar
3. Andrews, F. M. and Whitney, B.S., ( 1976). Social indicators of well-being. New York: Plenum Press. google scholar
4. Bache, I. (2013). Measuring quality of life for public policy: an idea whose time has come? Agenda-setting dynamics in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(1), 21-38. doi:10.1 080/13501763.2012.699658 google scholar
5. Baypınar, M.B., Taş, A., and Şeker, M. (2018). İstanbul uluslararası finans merkezi yapılanmasına hizmet edecek bölgelerin fiziki ve sosyal gelişmişliğinin izlenmesine yönelik model. (Model for monitoring of physical and social development of zones serving the making Istanbul a financial center). Scientific Report. Tender no. 2017/200587. Greater Municipality of Istanbul, ITUNOVA, Vera Research Corp. google scholar
6. Bilir, M. (2019). İstanbul’daki spor Istanbul çalışanlarının fiziksel aktivite ve yaşam kalitesi düzeyinin araştırılması (Master’s thesis, Sakarya Uygulamalı Bilimler Üniversitesi). google scholar
7. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. Russell Sage Foundation. google scholar
8. Chow, S. M., Lo, S. K., & Cummins, R. A. (2005). Self-perceived quality of life of children and adolescents with physical disabilities in Hong Kong. Quality of Life Research, 14(2), 415-423. google scholar

9. Council, N. R. (2002). Community and quality of life: Data needs for informed decision making. National Academy Press. Washington DC. google scholar
10. Craglia, M., Leontidou, L., Nuvolati, G., & Schweikart, J. (2004). Towards the development of quality of life ındicators in the ‘digital’ city. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(1), 5164. doi:10.1068/b12918 google scholar
11. Doward, L. C., & McKenna, S. P. (2004). Defining patient-reported outcomes. Value in health, 7, S4-S8. google scholar
12. Dülger Türkoğlu, H., Bölen, F., Baran, P. K., & Marans, R. W. (2009). İstanbul’da yaşam kalitesinin ölçülmesi. İTÜDERGİSİ/a, 7(2). google scholar
13. Evans, D. R. (1994). Enhancing quality of life in the population at large. Social indicators research, 33(1), 47-88. google scholar
14. Fromhold-Eisebith, M. (2015). Sectoral resilience: conceptualizing industry-specific spatial patterns of ınteractive crisis adjustment. European Planning Studies, 1-20. doi:10.1080/09654313.2015.1047329 google scholar
15. Gill, T. M., & Feinstein, A. R. (1994). A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. Journal Of Amerıcan Medıcal Assocıatıon ( Jama), 272(8), 619-626. doi:10.1001/ jama.1994.03520080061045 google scholar
16. Güvenç, M. (2000). İstanbul’u haritalamak: 1990 sayımından İstanbul manzaraları. İstanbul, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 34, 34-40. google scholar
17. Hall, P. (1995). Towards a general urban theory. Cities in Competition: Productive and Sustainable Cities for the 21st Century, 3-31. google scholar
18. Havighurst, R. J. (1963). Successful aging. Processes of aging: Social and psychological perspectives, 1, 299-320. google scholar
19. Healey, P. (2009). In search of the “strategic” in spatial strategy making. Planning Theory & Practice, 10(4), 439-457. doi:10.1080/14649350903417191 google scholar
20. Istanbul Health Offices (2020). Retrieved from https://www.saglik.gov.tr/?_Dil=2 google scholar
21. Istanbul Province National Education Offices (2020). Retrieved from https://www.meb.gov.tr/en/ google scholar
22. Istanbul Tax Offices (2020). Retrieved from https://ivdb.gib.gov.tr/ google scholar
23. İDO (2020). İstanbul Deniz Otobüsleri. Retrieved from https://www.ido.com.tr/ google scholar
24. İETT (2020). Istanbul Electricity, Tramway and Tunnel. Retrieved from https://iett.istanbul/en google scholar
25. İGDAŞ (2020). İstanbul Gaz ve Doğalgaz Dağıtım A.Ş. Retrieved from https://www.igdas.istanbul/ google scholar
26. İSKİ (2020). İstanbul Su ve Kanalizasyon İdaresi. Retrieved from https://www.iski.istanbul/web google scholar
27. İstanbul Ulaşım AŞ. (2020). Retrieved from https://ulasim.istanbul/ google scholar
28. İTO (2020). Istanbul Chamber of Commerce (ICOC). Retrieved from https://www.ito.org.tr/en google scholar
29. Janssen-Jansen, L. B. (2011). From Amsterdam to Amsterdam metropolitan area: A paradigm shift. International Planning Studies, 16(3), 257-272. doi:10.1080/13563475.2011.591145 google scholar
30. Lloyd, K., & Auld, C. (2003). Leisure, public space and quality of life in the urban environment. Urban Policy and Research, 21(4), 339-356. doi:10.1080/0811114032000147395 google scholar
31. Low, C. T., Stimson, R., and Chen, S. (2017). “Personal and Neighbourhood Indicators of Quality of Urban Life: A Case Study of Hong Kong.” Social Indicators Research, 136(2), 751-773. google scholar
32. Macke, J., Casagrande, R. M., Sarate, J. A. R., & Silva, K. A. (2018). Smart city and quality of life: Citizens’ perception in a Brazilian case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 717-726. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.078 google scholar
33. Mayer H., Knox P.L. (2009) Pace of life and quality of life: the slow city charter. In Sirgy M. J., Phillips R., Rahtz D.R. (eds) Community Quality-of-Life Indicators: Best Cases III, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2257-8_2 google scholar
34. Mbaye, L. M. (2014). “Barcelona or die”: understanding illegal migration from Senegal. IZA Journal of Migration, 3(1), 1-19. google scholar
35. Mora, L., Deakin, M., & Reid, A. (2019). Strategic principles for smart city development: A multiple case study analysis of European best practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 70-97. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.035 google scholar
36. Ng, S. L., Zhang, Y., Ng, K. H., Wong, H., & Lee, J. W. Y. (2017). Living environment and quality of life in Hong Kong. Asian Geographer, 1-17. doi:10.1080/10225706.2017.1406863 google scholar
37. Phillips, D. (2006). Quality of life: Concept, policy and practice: Routledge. google scholar
38. Reidin Housing Index (2020). Retrieved from https://blog.reidin.com/en/ google scholar
39. Rogerson, R. J. (1999). Quality of life and city competitiveness. Urban studies, 36(5-6), 969-985. google scholar
40. Salihoğlu, T. & Türkoğlu, H. (2019). Konut Çevresi ve Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesi. Megaron, 14. google scholar
41. Schneider, M. (1975). The quality of life in large American cities: Objective and subjective social indicators. Social Indicators Research, 1(4), 495-509. doi:10.1007/bf00353066 google scholar
42. Shin, D.C., & Johnson, D. M. (1978). Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life. Social Indicators Research, Volume 5, Numbers 1-4, pp.475-492. google scholar
43. Spilker, B. (1992). Standardisation of quality of life trials. PharmacoEconomics, 1(2), 73-75. doi:10.2165/00019053-199201020-00001 google scholar
44. Şeker, M. (2011). İstanbul’da Yaşam Kalitesi Araştırması. İstanbul Ticaret Odası. Yayın No: 2010:103. google scholar
45. Şeker, M. (2016). Quality of life ındex: a case study of Istanbul. Istanbul University Econometrics and Statistics e-Journal, (23), 1-15. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/iuekois/ issue/27283/287194 google scholar
46. The Banks Association of Turkey (2020). Retrieved from https://www.tbb.org.tr/en/home google scholar
47. TÜİK (2020). Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. Bölgesel istatistikler. Retrieved from https://www.tuik.gov.tr/ google scholar
48. Uzun, İ. (2008). Kamusal mekan-tüketim olgusu etkileşiminin İzmir’deki alışveriş merkezleri bağlamında değerlendirilmesi (Doctoral dissertation, DEÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü). google scholar
49. Wan, L. S. C., Heng, P. W. S., & Wong, L. F. (1991). The effect of hydroxypropylmethylcellulose on water penetration into a matrix system. International journal of pharmaceutics, 73(2), 111-116. google scholar
50. Wong, C. (2014). Indicators and spatial planning: methods and applications. In The Routledge Handbook of Planning Research Methods. Routledge. google scholar
51. Yener, Z., & K. Arapkirlioğlu, K. (2006). Avrupa Kentsel Şartı, İçişleri Bakanlığı Mahalli İdareler Genel Müdürlüğü Yayını. google scholar