Evaluating Urban Green Space Accessibility: Comparing Beşiktaş and Şişli Districts

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 01 Sayı: 01, 54 - 70, 01.12.2019

Semahat Ceren Say , Esin Çevik

https://doi.org/10.5505/sjcrp.2019.98608

Öz

Urban green areas are the physical features that provide important contributions to the city. The amount of green spaces and accessibility to green spaces are crucial for obtaining benefits from green spaces. The aim of this paper is to evaluate and compare the green space accessibility in two adjacent districts of İstanbul Beşiktaş and Şişli, both of which are located in the central business district (CBD) with different density characteristics. The paper starts with understanding the importance of green spaces and the standards that are used to determine the accessibility and sufficiency of green spaces. After that, sufficiency of green spaces according to Turkish legal standards was explored through calculating the area of green spaces per person at the neighborhood level in these two districts. Then, the accessibility of green space in Beşiktaş and Şişli was analyzed through mapping the service area of green spaces based on the walking distances that determined by the worldwide standards with network analysis. Geographical information system (GIS) is used to apply a network analysis of green space accessibility. Finally, these two districts were compared and evaluated with each other in terms of the accessibility results and the green space sufficiency.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Green Space, Accessibility, Network Analysis, Geographical Information System, İstanbul

Kentsel Yeşil Alanlara Erişimin Değerlendirilmesi: Beşiktaş ve Şişli İlçelerinin Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Kentsel yeşil alanların şehirlere önemli katkıları vardır. Yeşil alan miktarı ve yeşil alanlara olan erişim bu alanlardan fayda sağlanması noktasında oldukça önemlidir. Yapılan bu çalışma İstanbul’un Merkezi İş Alanı (MİA) bölgesinde yer alan; fakat farklı nüfus yoğunluğuna sahip birbirine komşu iki ilçe olan Beşiktaş ve Şişli İlçelerindeki yeşil alan erişilebilirliğini değerlendirmeyi ve karşılaştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada ilk olarak yeşil alanların öneminden ve yeşil alanların yeterliliği ve erişilebilirliğini belirlemek için kullanılan standartlardan bahsedilmiştir. Daha sonra, Türkiye standartlarına göre belirlenen yeşil alan yeterlilik düzeyi her iki ilçenin mahalleleri bazında kişi başına düşen yeşil alan miktarı ölçülerek incelenmiştir. Ardından, her iki ilçedeki yeşil alan erişilebilirliği, dünya standartları temel alınarak belirlenen yürüme mesafelerine göre, network (ağ) analizi yapılarak oluşturulan yeşil alan hizmet alanları üzerinden tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmada network analizini uygulama noktasında Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemlerinden (CBS) yararlanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak yapılan bu çalışmada çıkan sonuçlara göre her iki ilçedeki yeşil alan yeterliliği ve erişilebilirliği karşılaştırılmış ve değerlendirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yeşil Alanlar, Erişilebilirlik, Network (Ağ) Analizi, Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri, İstanbul

Kaynakça

• Abubakar, I. and A. Aina. 2006. “GIS and Space Syntax: An analysis of accessibility to urban green areas in Doha district of Dammam metropolitan area: Saudi Arabia.” In Proceedings of Map Middle East Conference, 1-8.
• Ahn, T.M., H.S. Choi, I.H. Kim, and H.J. Cho. 1991. “A study on the method of measuring accessibility to urban open spaces.” J. Korean Instit. Landscape Architect, 18 (4), 17–28.
• Aksoy, Y. 2001. İstanbul kenti yeşil alan durumunun irdelenmesi.” Doctoral dissertation, İstanbul Technical University.
• ArcGIS Network Analyst. 2019. “Features.” Accessed on 30.04.2019. https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-network-analyst/features
• Birkin, M., G. P. Clarke and M. Clarke. 1999. GIS for business and service planning. Geographical Information Systems: Principles Techniques Management and Applications. Wiley.
• Bolund, P., and S. Hunhammar. 1999. “Ecosystem services in urban areas.” Ecological Economics, 29(2), 293-301.
• Comber, A., C. Brunsdon, and E. Green. 2008. “Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups.” Landscape and Urban Planning, 86(1), 103-114.
• Coutts, C., M. Horner and T. Chapin. 2010. “Using geographical information system to model the effects of green space accessibility on mortality in Florida.” Geocarto International, 25(6), 471-484.
• De Ridder, K., V. Adamec, A. Bañuelos, M. Bruse, M. Bürger, O. Damsgaard and A. Thierry. 2004. “An integrated methodology to assess the benefits of urban green space.” Science of the Total Environment, 334, 489-497.
• Gerçek, D., and I. T. Guven. 2017. “Evaluating the sufficiency, accessibility and integrity of green spaces in urban environments.” Journal of Engineering Sciences and Design, 5(2), 393-397.
• Geurs, K. T. and B. Van Wee. 2004. “Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions.” Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2), 127-140.
• Gupta, K., A. Roy, K. Luthra, and S. Maithani, 2016. “GIS based analysis for assessing the accessibility at hierarchical levels of urban green spaces.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 18, 198-211.
• Handley, J., S. Pauleit, P. Slinn, S. Lindley, M. Baker, A. Barber, and C. Jones, 2003. “Providing accessible natural green space in towns and cities: a practical guide to assessing the resource and implementing local standards for provision.” Countryside Council for Wales. Accessed on 30.04.2019. https://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/78003
• İstanbul Kalkınma Ajansı. 2014. 2014-2023 İstanbul Bölge Planı.
• Jim, C. Y. and S. S. Chen. 2003. “Comprehensive greenspace planning based on landscape ecology principles in compact Nanjing city, China.” Landscape Urban Plan, 65, 95–116.
• Kuta, A. A., J. O. Odumosu, O. G. Ajayi, N. Zitta, H. A. Samail-Ija, and E. A. Adesina. 2014. “Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility for different socio-economic groups, specifically related to deprivation in Leicester, UK.” Civil and Environmental Research, 6(9), 12-20.
• Liu, Y., J. Li, and S. Li. 2017. “An Evaluation on Urban Green Space System Planning Based on Thermal Environmental Impact.” Current Urban Studies, 5(01), 68.
• Liu, Z., F. Mao, W. Zhou, Q. Li, J. Huang, and X. Zhu. 2008. “Accessibility assessment of urban green space: A quantitative perspective.” In Proceedings of International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Vol. 2, II-1314.
• Maas, J., R. A. Verheij, S. de Vries, P. Spreeuwenberg, F. G. Schellevis, and P. P. Groenewegen. 2009. “Morbidity is related to a green living environment.” Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 63(12), 967-973.
• Manchester City Council. 2017. “Manchester City Council – Setting Accessibility Standards Natural and Semi Natural Open Space.” Accessed on 30.04.2019. http://www.manchester.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/12080/city_wide_open_spaces_sport_and_recreation_study_-_appendix_h_accessibility_standards.pdf
• Nature England. 2010. “Nature Nearby: Accessible Green Space Guidance.” Accessed on 30.04.2019. http://www.ukmaburbanforum.co.uk/docunents/other/nature_nearby.pdf
• Pafi, M., A. Siragusa, S. Ferri, and M. Halkia. 2016. “Measuring the Accessibility of Urban Green Areas.” JRC Technical Reports. Accessed on 30.04.2019. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC102525/190916_siragusa_%20jrc_techrep_accessibility_online.pdf
• So, S. W. 2016. “Urban Green Space Accessibility and Environmental Justice: A GIS-Based Analysis in the City of Phoenix, Arizona.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
• Wang, Y. and J. Zacharias. 2015. “Landscape modification for ambient environmental improvement in central business districts - a case from Beijing.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(1), 8-18.
• Wolch, J. R., J. Byrne, and J. P. Newell. 2014. “Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’.” Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234-244.
• Zhang, L. and H. Wang. 2006. “Planning an ecological network of Xiamen Island (China) using landscape metrics and network analysis.” Landscape Urban Plan, 78, 449–456.