Kentsel Parklara İlişkin Memnuniyet Düzeyinin Değerlendirilmesi: Eskişehir Millet Bahçesi Örneği

Öz

Kentsel parklar, kentin çevresini iyileştirmek ve kullanıcının psikolojik ve fiziksel ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için önemlidir. Açık alanlarda yapılan ve yürütülen etkinlikler yaşam kalitesini artıran kentsel çevre faktörlerindendir. Bununla birlikte, parklara erişim kolaylığı, parkların rahatlığı, güvenliği ve parklardaki olanaklar gibi faktörler, parklara ilişkin memnuniyet düzeylerini etkilemektedir. Eskişehir Millet Bahçesi, Eskişehir kentinde eğlence ve eğitim parkı olarak hizmet veren parklardan biridir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, kent sakinlerinin kent parklarından memnuniyet düzeylerini, Eskişehir Millet Bahçesi örneğinde belirlemektir. Parktaki memnuniyet düzeyini ölçmek üzere kentsel alan kalite parametreleri ve bunların altında bir dizi gösterge kullanılmaktadır. Göstergeler üç ana başlığı kapsamaktadır: Farklı fiziksel aktivitelerin eğlence amaçlı kullanımı, güzellik, güvenlik ve erişim. Göstergelerin değerlendirilmesine yönelik olarak anket uygulanmış ve Önem-Performans Analizi (ÖPA) [Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA)] tekniği kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar, tüm değerlendirme göstergelerinin IPA planının ilk çeyreğine girmesi için yüksek performans ve yüksek öneme sahip olduğunu ve böylece Millet Bahçesi'nde kullanıcı memnuniyetinin sağlandığını göstermektedir. Araştırma ile elde edilen sonuçların, yetkililere yeni parkların geliştirilmesi ve mevcut parkların iyileştirilmesi süreçlerinde önceliklerin belirlenmesi konusunda yol gösterici olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kent parkları;
• Önem-performans analizi;
• Eskişehir Millet Bahçesi.

Evaluation of Satisfaction Level Regarding Urban Parks: The Case of Eskisehir Millet Bahcesi

Öz

Urban parks are important for improving the city's environment and meeting the psychological and physical needs of the users. Activities carried out in open areas are among the urban environmental factors that increase the quality of life. However, factors such as the ease of access to the parks, the convenience and security of the parks and the facilities in the parks influence parks satisfaction levels. Eskişehir Millet Bahçesi is one of the parks serving as an amusement and education park in the city of Eskişehir. The aim of this study is to determine the satisfaction levels of city residents from city parks in the case of Eskişehir Millet Bahçesi. Urban area quality parameters and a group of indicators are used to measure the level of satisfaction in the park. The indicators cover three main topics: comfort; use of different physical activities, aesthetics, safety and access. A questionnaire was applied to evaluate the indicators and the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) technique was used. The results indicate high performance and high importance, so that all evaluation indicators enter the first quarter of the IPA scheme, thus indicating the achievement of user satisfaction in Millet Bahçesi. It is thought that the results obtained from the research will guide the authorities in determining the priorities in the development of new parks and the improvement of existing parks.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Urban parks
• Importance-performance analysis;
• Eskişehir Millet Bahçesi.

Kaynakça

1. Addas, A., Maghrabi, A., & Goldblatt, R. (2021). Public open spaces evaluation using importance-performance analysis (IPA) in Saudi Universities: The case of King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020915
2. Akpinar, A. (2016). How is quality of urban green spaces associated with physical activity and health? Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 16, 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.01.011
3. Baloglu, S., & Love, C. (2003). Association Meeting Planners’ Perceived Performance of Las Vegas. Journal of Convention & Exhibition Management, 5(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1300/J143v05n01_02
4. Boyd, F., White, M. P., Bell, S. L., & Burt, J. (2018). Who doesn’t visit natural environments for recreation and why: A population representative analysis of spatial, individual and temporal factors among adults in England. Landscape and Urban Planning, 175(November 2017), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.016
5. Chiesura, A. (2004a). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
6. Chiesura, A. (2004b). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
7. Cohen, P., Potchter, O., & Schnell, I. (2014). The impact of an urban park on air pollution and noise levels in the Mediterranean city of Tel-Aviv, Israel. Environmental Pollution, 195, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.08.015
8. Davies, R. G., Barbosa, O., Fuller, R. A., Tratalos, J., Burke, N., Lewis, D., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2008). City-wide relationships between green spaces, urban land use and topography. In Urban Ecosystems (Vol. 11, Issue 3, pp. 269–287). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-008-0062-y

9. Düzgüneş, E., & Saraç, E. (2018). Evaluation of urban transformation areas in terms of user satisfaction: the case study of Zağnos Valley (Trabzon/Turkey). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 190(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6381-9
10. Ferré, M. B., Guitart, A. O., & Ferret, M. P. (2006). Children and playgrounds in Mediterranean cities. Children’s Geographies, 4(2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733280600806999
11. Geng, D. (Christina), Innes, J., Wu, W., & Wang, G. (2021). Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on urban park visitation: a global analysis. Journal of Forestry Research, 32(2), 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-020-01249-w
12. Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, A., & Öhrström, E. (2007). Noise and well-being in urban residential environments: The potential role of perceived availability to nearby green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(2–3), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.03.003
13. Gunnarsson, B., Knez, I., Hedblom, M., & Sang, O. (2017). Effects of biodiversity and environment-related attitude on perception of urban green space. Urban Ecosystems, 20(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0581-x
14. Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00109-3
15. Hasani, M., Sakieh, Y., & Khammar, S. (2017). Measuring satisfaction: analyzing the relationships between sociocultural variables and functionality of urban recreational parks. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19(6), 2577–2594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9856-x
16. Jo, H. I., & Jeon, J. Y. (2021). Overall environmental assessment in urban parks: Modelling audio-visual interaction with a structural equation model based on soundscape and landscape indices. Building and Environment, 204(May), 108166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108166
17. Kaczynski, A. T., & Henderson, K. A. (2007). Environmental correlates of physical activity: A review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leisure Sciences, 29(4), 315–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400701394865
18. Koca, S. (2020). Topografik Faktörlere Göre Yerleşimin Dağilişi Distribution of settlements in Eskişehir central districts ( Odunpazarı and Tepebaşı ). 29(2), 217–228.
19. Konijnendijk, C. C., Annerstedt, M., Nielsen, A. B., & Maruthaveeran, S. (2013). Benefits of Urban Parks — A systematic review. (Copenhagen & Alnarp: International Federation of Parks and Recreation Administration).
20. Koramaz, E. K., & Türkoğlu, H. (2018). Measuring and Understanding Urban Parks’ Contribution to Quality of Life in Istanbul. Social Indicators Research, 138(1), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1657-6
21. Kurniawati, W. (2012). Public Space for Marginal People. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.052
22. M, S., Taplin, D., & Scheld, S. (2009). Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space and Cultural Diversity. University of Texas Press.
23. Maniruzzaman, K. M., Alqahtany, A., Abou-Korin, A., & Al-Shihri, F. S. (2021). An analysis of residents’ satisfaction with attributes of urban parks in Dammam city, Saudi Arabia. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 12(3), 3365–3374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.11.020
24. Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297704100112
25. McCormack, G. R., Rock, M., Swanson, K., Burton, L., & Massolo, A. (2014). Physical activity patterns in urban neighbourhood parks: Insights from a multiple case study. In BMC Public Health (Vol. 14, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-962
26. Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a city: urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 3(1), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809808724418
27. Neema, M. N., Maniruzzaman, K. M., & Ohgai, A. (2013). Greenery-based model of green urbanism for developing a sustainable healthy livable city - Dhaka city’s perspective. Proceedings of the 2013 13th International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications, ICCSA 2013, 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSA.2013.43
28. Németh, J., & Langhorst, J. (2014). Rethinking urban transformation: Temporary uses for vacant land. Cities, 40, 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.04.007
29. Nielsen, T. S., & Hansen, K. B. (2007). Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health and Place, 13(4), 839–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.02.001
30. Oloumi, S., Mahdavinejad, M., & Namvarrad, A. (2012). Evaluation of Outdoor Environment from the Viewpoint of Children. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35(December 2011), 431–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.108
31. Polat, S. (2021). The Evaluation of Public Open Space Quality from the Perspective of Syrian Refugees Living in Bursa , Turkey Shaza ALSALLOMY Bursa ’ da Yaşayan Suriyeli Göçmenler Açısından Kamusal Açık A lan Kalitesinin Değerlendirilmesi. 1, 56–71.
32. Rey Gozalo, G., Barrigón Morillas, J. M., Montes González, D., & Atanasio Moraga, P. (2018). Relationships among satisfaction, noise perception, and use of urban green spaces. Science of the Total Environment, 624, 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.148
33. Schipperijn, J., Bentsen, P., Troelsen, J., Toftager, M., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 12(1), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.12.002
34. Shuib, K. B., Hashim, H., & Nasir, N. A. M. (2015). Community Participation Strategies in Planning for Urban Parks. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168, 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.236
35. Syphard, A. D., Clarke, K. C., & Franklin, J. (2007). Simulating fire frequency and urban growth in southern California coastal shrublands, USA. In Landscape Ecology (Vol. 22, Issue 3, pp. 431–445). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-9025-y
36. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J., & James, P. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. In Landscape and Urban Planning (Vol. 81, Issue 3, pp. 167–178). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001
37. Wan, C., Shen, G. Q., & Choi, S. (2020). Effects of physical and psychological factors on users’ attitudes, use patterns, and perceived benefits toward urban parks. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 51, 126691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126691
38. Wenzhong, Z. (2007). Study on Intrinsic Meanings of the Livable City and the Evaluation System of Livable City. Vol. 3, pp. 30–34.
39. Werner, P. (2011). The ecology of urban areas and their functions for species diversity. In Landscape and Ecological Engineering (Vol. 7, Issue 2, pp. 231–240). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-011-0153-4
40. Wojnowska-Heciak, M. (2019). The naturalness of the Vistula Riverbank’s landscape: Warsaw inhabitants’ perceptions. In Sustainability (Switzerland) (Vol. 11, Issue 21). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215957
41. Wojnowska-Heciak, M., Suchocka, M., Błaszczyk, M., & Muszyńska, M. (2022). Urban Parks as Perceived by City Residents with Mobility Difficulties: A Qualitative Study with In-Depth Interviews. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042018
42. Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017
43. Xu, Z., Gao, X., Wang, Z., & Fan, J. (2019). Big Data-Based Evaluation of Urban Parks: A Chinese Case Study. Sustainability, 11(7), 2125. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072125
44. Yu, B., Che, S., Xie, C., & Tian, S. (2018). Understanding Shanghai residents’ perception of leisure impact and experience satisfaction of urban community parks: An integrated and IPA method. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041067
45. Zhang, T., & Gobster, P. H. (1998). Leisure preferences and open space needs in an urban Chinese American community. 15(4), 338–355.