URBAN LİVİNG AREA SATİSFACTİON AND PUBLİC PREFERENCE

HASAN Yılmaz; Hilal Surat; Esra Özhancı; Pervin Yeşil; Murat Yeşil

doi:10.17475/kuofd.53810

-

Year 2015, Volume: 15 Issue: 2, 319 - 329, 26.06.2015

HASAN Yılmaz , Hilal Surat , Esra Özhancı Pervin Yeşil Murat Yeşil

https://doi.org/10.17475/kuofd.53810

Cited By: 2

Abstract

The aim of the present study, which was carried out in three different cities of Turkey (Erzurum, Artvin, Tokat), is to determine satisfaction degree of urban people with the environment they live and to bring about their demands and biases for their living environs. The study includes totally 300 questionnaires conducted over subjects from each city. As the consequence of the study it was found that people in Erzurum and Tokat are satisfied with the urban environment they live (59.0 % and 64.0% respectively) whereas those in Artvin are not (69%). Among the living area types people prefer, if they are given adequate time and money, are coastal areas in the first row (M:6.64), which are followed by the areas near water surfaces, lakes and river banks. While people generally prefer residential areas in the cities far from the centres (M:5.79) the most, they prefer the areas again far from centres and close to parks and green sites in the second row (M:5.64). it was concluded from the study that regardless of their income, education, age, gender, and occupation, urban people tend to prefer natural areas by escaping from the stresses in urban areas (e.g. dense urbanisation, traffic, pollution, population density, psychological stress and lack of green areas)

Keywords

Landscape, landscape preference, landscape planning

References

Adler, A., 1993.Yaamın anlam ve amacı, Birinci basım, Say yayınları, Đstanbul. Anonymous 2001. Turkish statistical annual. State Statistics Institution , Ankara.
Anonymous 2008. TUİK 2007 Census data www.tuik.gov.tr (04. 03.2008).
Anonymous 2008c. http://www.artvin.gov.tr/igp/agip_evre.pdf
Anonymous 2008b. Turkish State Meteorological Services. Arriaza M, Canas-Ortega JF, Canas-Madueno JA, Ruiz-Aviles P. 2004.Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69 (1): 115–25.
Clay GR, Smidt RK., 2004. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 66 (4): 239–55.
Emür, S. H., Onsekiz, D., 2007. Kentsel Yaam Kalitesi Bileşenleri Arasında Açık ve Yeşil Alanların Önemi – Kayseri/Kocasinan Đlçesi Park Alanları Analizi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22 (1), 367-396.
Erdoğan, E., 2006. Çevre ve Kent Estetiği. ZKÜ Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 8 (9), 68- 77.
Givoni, B., 1991. Impact of planted areas on urban environmental quality: a review. Atmospheric Env. 25 (3): 289-299.
Gül, A., Küçük, V., 2001. Kentsel açık yeşil alanlar ve Isparta kenti örneğinde irdelenmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 2: 27-48.
Habron D., 1998. Visual perception of wild land in Scotland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42(1):45-56.
Hartig et al., 2003 T. Hartig, G.W. Evans, L.D. Jamner, D.S. Davis and T. Gärling, Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings, J. Environ. Psychol. 23: 109–123.
Kalın, A.,1997. Bitkilerin Anlamsal Boyutu: Fonksiyonlardaki Bina ve Mekanlarla Anılabilen Bitkiler Üzerine Bir Aratırma. KTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Trabzon.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University, Cambridge U.K.
Karmanov, D., Hamel, R., 2008. Assessing the restorative potential of contemporary urban environment(s): Beyond the nature versus urban dichotomy. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86(2): 115-125 .
Kıroğlu, E., 2007. Erzurum Kenti ve Yakın Çevresindeki Bazı Rekreasyon Alanlarının Görsel Peyzaj Kalitesi Yönünden Değerlendirilmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Yüksek Lisans Tezi. 173, Erzurum.
Kuchelmeister , G., Braatz, S., 1993. Urban Forestry Revisited. An International Journal of The Forestry and Food Endustries, Unasylva 44 (2):13-18
Laumann et al., 2003 K. Laumann, T. Garling and K.M. Stormark, Selective attention and heart rate responses to natural and urban environments, J. Environ. Psychol. 23:125– 134.
Ode AK, Fry GLA. 2002. Visual aspects in urban woodland management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 1 (1) : 15–24.
Özdamar K. 2002. Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi. Kaan Kitabevi, p 479. Eskişehir.
Parsons, R., 1991. The Potential Influences of Environmental Perception on Human Held. J.Environ. Psychol. 11: 1–23.
Raitz K., Dakhil M., 1988. Recreational choices and environmental preference . Annals of Tourism Research, 15(3): 357–370.
Real E, Arce C, Sabucedo JM. 2000. Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data, and prediction of their scenic beauty in north-western Spain. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 20 (4) : 355-373.
Susam, T., 2006. Yüzey Suları Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemi: Tokat İli Örneği. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi www.e-sosder.com, C.5 S.16 (57–67)
Tahvanainen L, Tyrvainen L, Ihalainen M, Vuorela N, Kolehmainen O. 2001. Forest management and public perceptions -visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning, 53 (1-4) : 53-70.
Ulrich, R.S., 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery, Science 224: 420–421.
Yilmaz, H., 1994. Kentsel Peyzaj Planlama Açısından Salihli Kentinin Yapısal Analizi. Ege Üniv. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü ( Basılmamış Doktora Tezi ), İzmir.