Z Kuşağı Kadınlarının Gözünden Kent Ağaçları: Türk Şehirlerine İlişkin Algılar ve Beklentiler

Öz

Küresel nüfus artışı ve hızlı kentleşme süreçleri, şehirlerin yapısal alanlarını genişletirken aynı zamanda ekosistemleri ve insan psikolojisini olumsuz etkilemektedir. Bu bağlamda, kent içindeki ağaçlar yalnızca estetik değerleriyle değil, aynı zamanda hava kalitesini artırma, gölgelik alanlar sağlama ve ekolojik dengeyi destekleme gibi işlevsel katkılarıyla da şehir yaşamında hayati bir rol üstlenmektedir. Özellikle bireylerin stres seviyelerini azaltarak psikolojik iyilik hâllerine olumlu etkide bulunan ağaçlar, kent sürdürülebilirliğinin temel bileşenlerinden biridir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki Z kuşağı kadınlarının kent ağaçlarına yönelik algı ve beklentilerini ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. 1.061 katılımcıdan elde edilen veriler, açıklayıcı faktör analizi ve çeşitli nonparametrik testler aracılığıyla değerlendirilmiştir. Analiz sonucunda beş temel faktör belirlenmiştir: Ekolojik ve Psikolojik Yararlar, Kentsel Ağaç Sorunları, Ağaç Yeterliliği ve Tür Çeşitliliği, Sağlık ve Güvenlik Endişeleri ile Ekonomik Değer. Katılımcılar arasında Ekolojik ve Psikolojik Yararlar faktörü en yüksek ortalamaya sahipken, Ağaç Yeterliliği ve Tür Çeşitliliği en düşük ortalamayı almıştır. Kruskal-Wallis testi sonuçları, şehir, eğitim ve meslek değişkenlerine göre bazı faktörlerde anlamlı farklılıklar olduğunu göstermiştir. Özellikle Ankara’da yaşayan katılımcılar, kent ağaçlarının ekolojik ve psikolojik faydalarını daha yüksek düzeyde algılamaktadır. Eğitim düzeyine göre yapılan değerlendirmede ise, doktora mezunu katılımcıların kent ağaçlarının ekonomik değerine ve psikolojik yararlarına daha fazla önem verdikleri görülmüştür. Çalışmanın bulguları, kentlerde uygulanacak ağaçlandırma politikalarının yerel koşullar ve halkın algıları göz önünde bulundurularak şekillendirilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kentsel Ağaçlar
• Kentsel Ağaçların Algılanması
• Z Kuşağı

Urban Trees Through Gen Z Women’s Eyes: Perceptions and Expectations from Turkish Cities

Öz

Abstract must Global population growth and rapid urbanization processes are expanding the structural areas of cities while also negatively affecting ecosystems and human psychology. In this context, trees within cities play a vital role in urban life not only for their aesthetic value but also for their functional contributions, such as improving air quality, providing shade, and supporting ecological balance. Trees, which positively influence psychological well-being by reducing stress levels in individuals, are a fundamental component of urban sustainability. This study aims to reveal the perceptions and expectations of Generation Z women in Turkey regarding urban trees. Data obtained from 1,061 participants were evaluated through exploratory factor analysis and various nonparametric tests. As a result of the analysis, five main factors were identified: Ecological and Psychological Benefits, Urban Tree Issues, Tree Sufficiency and Species Diversity, Health and Safety Concerns, and Economic Value. Among the participants, the Ecological and Psychological Benefits factor had the highest average, while Tree Sufficiency and Species Diversity had the lowest average. The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test showed significant differences in some factors according to city, education, and occupation variables. In particular, participants living in Ankara perceive the ecological and psychological benefits of urban trees at a higher level. In the evaluation based on education level, it was observed that participants with doctoral degrees placed greater importance on the economic value and psychological benefits of urban trees. The findings of the study highlight the need for urban afforestation policies to be shaped by considering local conditions and public perceptions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Urban Trees
• Perception of Urban Trees
• Generation Z

Kaynakça

1. Adıgüzel, F. (2023). Effects of green spaces on microclimate in sustainable urban planning. International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics, 10(3), 124–131.
2. Alkan, A., Adıgüzel, F., & Kaya, E. (2017). Batman Kentinde Kentsel Isınmanın Azaltılmasında Yeşil Alanların Önemi. Coğrafya Dergisi, 34, 62–76.
3. Camacho Cervantes, Morelia, Shondube, Jorge E., Castillo, Alicia, MacGregor Fors, I. (2014). How do people perceive urban trees? Assessing likes and dislikes in relation to the trees of a city. Urban Ecosystems, 17(3), 716–773.
4. Camacho-Cervantes, M., Schondube, J. E., Castillo, A., & MacGregor-Fors, I. (2014). How do people perceive urban trees? Assessing likes and dislikes in relation to the trees of a city. Urban Ecosystems, 17(3), 761–773. Carlyle-Moses, D. E., Livesley, S., Baptista, M. D., Thom, J., & Szota, C. (2020). Urban trees as green infrastructure for stormwater mitigation and use. Forest-Water Interactions, 397–432.
5. Courtney, D. A. (2020). Exploring Generation Z’s Environmental Concerns and Its Effects on their Purchasing Behaviors.
6. Dalros Sköld, E. (2023). PERCEPTION OF URBAN TREES AND THEIR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2019). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420).
7. Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center, 17(1), 1–7.
8. Ezzati, E., Farmanbar, R., & Khaleghizadeh, S. (2014). Influencing Factors in the Communication Skills of Basic Sciences Teachers: An Explanatory Factor Analysis. J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci, 4(2), 181–186.

9. Flury, B., & Riedwyl, H. (n.d.). Multivariate Statistics: A Practical Approach.(1988). London: Chapman and Hall.
10. Gül, A., Topay, M., & Örücü, Ö. K. (2012). CBS YARDIMIYLA AĞAÇ ENVANTERİ MODELİNİN OLUŞTURULMASI. 16–19.
11. Gwedla, N., & Shackleton, C. M. (2019). Perceptions and preferences for urban trees across multiple socio-economic contexts in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Landscape and Urban Planning, 189, 225–234.
12. Hall, C. R., & Knuth, M. J. (2019). An update of the literature supporting the well-being benefits of plants: Part 2 physiological health benefits. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 37(2), 63–73.
13. Keleş, R. (1998). Kentbilim Terimleri Sözlüğü, İmge Kitabevi, 2. Baskı, Ankara.
14. Kusmane, A. S., Ile, U., & Ziemelniece, A. (2019). Importance of trees with low-growing branches and shrubs in perception of urban spaces. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 471(9), 92061.
15. Loughner, C. P., Allen, D. J., Zhang, D.-L., Pickering, K. E., Dickerson, R. R., & Landry, L. (2012). Roles of urban tree canopy and buildings in urban heat island effects: Parameterization and preliminary results. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 51(10), 1775–1793.
16. MacFarland, T. W., Yates, J. M., MacFarland, T. W., & Yates, J. M. (2016). Spearman’s rank-difference coefficient of correlation. Introduction to Nonparametric Statistics for the Biological Sciences Using R, 249–297.
17. McClendon, M. J. (2002). Multiple regression and causal analysis. Waveland Press.
18. Nali, C., & Lorenzini, G. (2009). Residents’ perception of tree diseases in the urban environment. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF), 35(2), 87–93.
19. Nowak, D., & Heisler, G. (2010). Air quality effects of urban trees and parks. Research Series Monograph. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Parks Association Research Series Monograph. 44 p., 1–44.
20. Ostoić, S. K., Vuletić, D., & Kičić, M. (2024). Exploring the negative perceptions of tree-based urban green space. People’s behaviour and management are crucial. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 101, 128539.
21. Rašković, S., & Decker, R. (2015). The influence of trees on the perception of urban squares. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(2), 237–245.
22. Ribeiro, M. I. B., Lopes, I. M., & Fernandes, A. J. G. (2024). Environmental Awareness and Sustainable Consumption Among Portuguese University Students from Generation Z. International Conference in Information Technology and Education, 311–323.
23. Sharma, S., Hussain, S., Kumar, P., & Singh, A. N. (2024). Urban trees’ potential for regulatory services in the urban environment: an exploration of carbon sequestration. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 196(6), 504.
24. Shrestha, N. (2021). Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 9(1), 4–11.
25. Troy, A., Grove, J. M., & O’Neil-Dunne, J. (2012). The relationship between tree canopy and crime rates across an urban–rural gradient in the greater Baltimore region. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106(3), 262–270.
26. Ulmer, J. M., Wolf, K. L., Backman, D. R., Tretheway, R. L., Blain, C. J. A., O’Neil-Dunne, J. P. M., & Frank, L. D. (2016). Multiple health benefits of urban tree canopy: The mounting evidence for a green prescription. Health & Place, 42, 54–62. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.08.011
27. Von Döhren, P., & Haase, D. (2019). Risk assessment concerning urban ecosystem disservices: The example of street trees in Berlin, Germany. Ecosystem Services, 40, 101031. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101031
28. White, M. P., Alcock, I., Wheeler, B. W., & Depledge, M. H. (2013). Would you be happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed-effects analysis of panel data. Psychological Science, 24(6), 920–928.
29. Wicks, C., Barton, J., Orbell, S., & Andrews, L. (2022). Psychological benefits of outdoor physical activity in natural versus urban environments: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of experimental studies. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 14(3), 1037–1061.
30. Wood, E. M., & Esaian, S. (2020). The importance of street trees to urban avifauna. Ecological Applications, 30(7).