The Relationship between Biophilic Design and Spatial Justice in Cities

Öz

Biophilic design as a planning approach emphasizes nature and the natural environment in urban planning and is called as ‘naturalization of urbanization’. Biophilic approaches to urban planning aim to increase the percentage of natural or artificial open-green spaces in the urban fabric, and to maximize the accessibility of and beneficial experience in these areas. The main argument of the study is to focus on micro-scale spatial interventions and solutions starting from the local scale instead of macro and upper scale transformation and interventions in cities. It is acknowledge that the interventions at local spatial levels may increase the integration and connection with upper levels in cities. The study focuses on neighborhood scale, measuring the accessibility of neighborhood parks and searching for park linking networks using a point-based accessibility approach. The operationalization of the analytical spatial approach has been designed in the model of data-based design. A GIS database is created using spatial data of existing urban environment, using ArMap 10.5 and network analysis as a GIS software. The accessibility of existing parks in the study area is calculated using network (actual distance) based service area analysis. Access lines via streets within a maximum of 500m walking distance to parks are calculated that is revealing what is the walking distance between residences and closest parks. As a result of the analysis, it is seen that the existing parks are accessible within 300m on average. However, it is observed that some residential units could not access any park area within 500m walking distance. New parks are proposed in existing urban voids to increase accessibility to parks. Therefore, 9 new park areas are proposed to increase accessibility and pedestrian-oriented routes are proposed to revive the Meles river as a connecting natural element. By means of new routes and parks, the green space integration and the sense of spatial justice will be both strengthened.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biophilic Urbanism
• Neighborhood Parks
• Accessibility

Kentlerde Biyofilik Tasarım ve Mekansal Adalet İlişkisi: Mahalle Parkları Deneyimi

Öz

Günümüzde kentsel planlamada doğa ve doğal çevreyi öne çıkaran ve kentleşmenin doğallaştırılması olarak gündeme gelen yaklaşım biyofilik tasarım ve planlama yaklaşımıdır. Biyofilik yaklaşımlar, doğal veya yapay açık-yeşil alan, doku ve parçaların kentsel doku içerisindeki yüzdesinin artırılması ve ayrıca bireylerin bu alanlara erişiminin ve alan deneyimlerinin en yüksek seviyeye çıkartılmasını amaçlamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın ana argümanı, kent bütünde makro ve üst ölçek planlama ve dönüşüm müdahaleleri yerine mikro-müdahaleler ile yerel ölçekten başlayan çözümlerin keşfedilerek ön plana çıkartılmasıdır. Yerelde yapılan müdahaleler ile kent bütününde entegrasyonun artacağı ve ulaşım bağlantılarının kuvvetleneceği öngörülmektedir. Yerel ölçek olarak mahalle ve konut çevresi ölçeğine odaklanan çalışma, mahalle parklarının erişilebilirliği ve olası park bağlayıcı ağların keşfini nokta tabanlı erişilebilirlik yaklaşımı ile ele almıştır. Bu analitik mekansal yaklaşımın operasyonel hale gelmesi veri temelli model tasarımı şeklinde kurgulanmıştır. Mevcut mekansal veriler kullanılarak CBS veritabanı oluşturulmuş, CBS yazılımı olarak ArcMap 10.5 ve network ağ analizleri kullanılmıştır. Çalışma alanında bulunan mevcut park alanlarının erişilebilirliği, network (gerçek mesafe) tabanlı çalışan servis analizi kullanılarak hesaplanmıştır. Park alanlarının maksimum 500m içindeki erişim hatları hesaplanmıştır ve böylece alandaki konut birimlerinin (en kısa) hangi mesafede bir park alanına eriştiği ortaya konulmuştur. Yapılan analizler sonucunda, mevcut parkların ortalama 300m içerisinde erişim sağlandığı görülmüştür. Fakat bazı konut birimlerinin 500m içerisinde bir park alanına erişemediği tespit edilmiş, bu nedenle park alanlarına erişimi arttırmak için mevcut yapılaşmamış alanlarda yeni park alanları ile birlikte Meles deresini bağdaştırıcı bir unsur olarak canlandırmak için yaya odaklı akslar önerilmiştir. Bunlar, park alanlarını ve su öğesini kapsayan yaya öncelikli akslar olarak nitelendirilebilir. Bu sayede hem yeşil alan entegrasyonu iyileştirilmiş hem de mekansal adalet duygusu kuvvetlendirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyofilik Kentleşme
• Mahalle Parkları
• Erişilebilirlik

Kaynakça

1. Apparicio, P., Abdelmajid, M., Riva, M., & Shearmur, R. (2008). Comparing alternative approaches to measuring the geographical accessibility of urban health services: Distance types and aggregation-error issues. International Journal of Health Geographics, 7(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-7-7
2. Barton, H.,& Grant, M. (2010). Shaping neighbourhoods : For local health and global sustainability. London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.,,.
3. Beatley, T. (2009). Biophilic Urbanism: Inviting Nature Back to Our Communities and Into Our Lives. William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 34(1), 209–238.
4. Beatley, T., & Newman, P. (2013). Biophilic Cities Are Sustainable, Resilient Cities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 5(8), 3328-3345
5. Day, R. (2008). Local environments and older people’s health: Dimensions from a comparative qualitative study in Scotland. Health and Place, 14(2), 299–312.
6. Ekkel, E. D., & de Vries, S. (2017). Nearby green space and human health: Evaluating accessibility metrics. Landscape and Urban Planning. 157, 214-220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.06.008
7. European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. (2021). https://www.urbangreenup.eu/.
8. İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi. (2021). Kentsel ve Ekolojik Omurga Olarak Meles Çayı Ulusal Kentsel Tasarım Fikir Projesi Yarışması. Ege Mimarlık, 110(2), 6–12.

9. Kara, B., Tuncay, H. E., & Deniz, B. (2011). Investigating recreational qualities of the parks in Aydın. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 19, 158–164.
10. Kearns, A., & Parkinson, M. (2001). The Significance of Neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2103–2110.
11. Kwan. M. P. (2010). Space-Time and Integral Measures of Individual Accessibility: A Comparative Analysis Using a Point-based Framework. Geographical Analysis, 30(3), 191–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1998.tb00396.x
12. Kwan, M. P. (1999). Gender and individual access to urban opportunities: A study using space–time measures. Professional Geographer. 51(2), 210-227, https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00158
13. Kwan, M. P. (2002). Feminist visualization: Re-envisioning GIS as a method in feminist geographic research. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 92(4), 645-661, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.00309
14. Matan, A., & Newman, P. (2015). Green Urbanism in the Indian Ocean Region. Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, 11(1), 60–73.
15. Moser, G., Ratiu, E., & Fleury-Bahi, G. (2002). Appropriation and Interpersonal Relationships: From Dwelling to City Through the Neighborhood. Environment and Behavior, 34(1), 122–136.
16. Neutens, T., Schwanen, T., Witlox, F., & De Maeyer, P. (2010). Equity of Urban Service Delivery: A Comparison of Different Accessibility Measures. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 42(7), 1613–1635. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4230
17. Newman, P. (2014). Biophilic urbanism: a case study on Singapore. Australian Planner, 51(1), 47–65.
18. Oh, K., & Jeong, S. (2007). Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82(1–2), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.014
19. Özden, M. A. (2019). Yaşanabilir Kentler İçin Yeni Bir Yaklaşım Olarak ‘Biyofilik Tasarım’ Teoriden Uygulamaya Bir Değerlendirme. Şehir ve Şehir Yönetimi, 597–621.
20. Reeve, A., Desha, C., Hargreaves, D., & Hargroves, K. C. (2015). Biophilic urbanism: contributions to holistic urban greening for urban renewal. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 4(2), 215–233.
21. Rigolon, A. (2016). A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning. 153, 160-169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.017
22. Rushton, G. (2001). Spatial decision support systems. In Smelser, E.-i.-C. N. J. and Baltes, P. B., editors, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, pages 14785–14788. Pergamon, Oxford.
23. Stafford, L., & Baldwin, C. (2018). Planning Walkable Neighborhoods: Are We Overlooking Diversity in Abilities and Ages? Journal of Planning Literature. 33(1):17-30, https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412217704649
24. Swyngedouw, E., & Heynen, N. C. (2003). Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of scale. Antipode. 35(5), 898 - 918, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2003.00364.x
25. Tabb, P. J. (2021). Biophilic Urbanism Designing Resilient Communities for the Future. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
26. Talen, & Anselin, L. (1998). Assessing spatial equity: An evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A. 30(4), 595-613, https://doi.org/10.1068/a300595
27. Tan, P. Y., & Samsudin, R. (2017). Effects of spatial scale on assessment of spatial equity of urban park provision. Landscape and Urban Planning. 158, 139-154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.11.001
28. Tsou, K. W., Hung, Y. T., & Chang, Y. L. (2005). An accessibility-based integrated measure of relative spatial equity in urban public facilities. Cities, 22(6), 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2005.07.004
29. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, 2020, https://www.tuik.gov.tr/
30. Williams, A. (2002). The Optimal Provision of Public Goods in a System of Local Government. Journal of Political Economy. 74(1), 18-33, https://doi.org/10.1086/259106
31. Yeh, A. G. O., & Chow, M. H. (1996). An integrated GIS and location-allocation approach to public facilities planning: An example of open space planning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 20(4), 339–350. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0198-9715(97)00010-0