Public Demands and Evaluation of Sports Services Offered By Municipalities – Büyükçekmece District Example

Öz

Aim: The aim of this study is to examine the satisfaction levels of individuals using public recreation areas and their expectations from these areas. Methods: A total of 350 individuals aged between 18 and 61 participated in the study voluntarily. The data in the study were obtained by applying the demographic information form prepared by the researcher and the satisfaction scale of the recreation services of the municipalities developed by Çoban (2002). The obtained data were analyzed in SPSS program. Results: As a result of the analysis; participants generally; are male (57.7%), the age range is concentrated between 35-50 (36.3%), the participants generally have a university education (58.9%), the majority (54.3%) do not do sports regularly, and the services of the municipalities are not sufficient. It was determined that those who did not find it were in the majority (57.1%). It was determined that the average score of the participants' satisfaction scale was 3.5±0.6. While there was no statistically significant difference in this score when the gender, age range, and working years of the participants were taken into account, it was determined that there were significant differences when the education level and levels of finding the services were sufficient. Conclusion: Based on these findings; It was determined that the participants did not find the recreation areas provided by the municipalities sufficient. According to this, it can be said that this situation can change by arranging the recreation areas in accordance with the purpose and increasing the number of them.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Management
• Recreation
• Leisure
• Public
• Expectation

Belediyelerin Sunduğu Spor Hizmetlerinde Halkın Talepleri ve Değerlendirilmesi – Büyükçekmece İlçesi Örneği

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı kamusal rekreasyon alanlarını kullanan bireylerin memnuniyet düzeylerini ve bu alanlardan beklentilerini incelemektir. Yöntem: Araştırmaya yaşları 18 ile 61 arasında değişen toplam 350 kişi gönüllü olarak katılmıştır. Araştırmada veriler araştırmacı tarafından hazırlanan demografik bilgi formu ve Çoban (2002) tarafından geliştirilen belediyelerin rekreasyon hizmetlerinden memnuniyet ölçeği uygulanarak elde edilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler SPSS programında analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Analiz sonucunda; genel olarak katılımcılar, erkek (%57,7), yaş aralığının 35-50 (%36,3) arasında yoğunlaştığı, katılımcıların genel olarak üniversite eğitimi aldığı (%58,9), çoğunluğun (%54,3) düzenli spor yapmadığı ve Belediyeler yeterli değil. Bulamayanların çoğunlukta (%57,1) olduğu belirlendi. Katılımcıların memnuniyet ölçeği ortalama puanının 3,5±0,6 olduğu belirlendi. Katılımcıların cinsiyeti, yaş aralığı ve çalışma yılı dikkate alındığında bu puanda istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmazken, eğitim düzeyi ve hizmet bulma düzeyleri yeterli olduğunda anlamlı farklılıklar olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç: Bu bulgulara dayanarak; Katılımcıların belediyelerin sağladığı rekreasyon alanlarını yeterli bulmadıkları belirlendi. Buna göre rekreasyon alanlarının amaca uygun olarak düzenlenmesi ve sayısının arttırılmasıyla bu durumun değişebileceği söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yönetim
• Rekreasyon
• Boş zaman
• Halk
• Beklenti

Kaynakça

1. Allik, J., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns of profiles across 36 cultures. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 35(1), 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022103260382
2. Arnberger, A., Budruk, M., Schneider, I. E., & Stanis, S. A. W. (2022). Predicting place attachment among walkers in the urban context: The role of dogs, motivations, satisfaction, past experience and setting development. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 70, 127531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127531
3. Avcılar, M. (2016). Public Opinions on Sports Services Provided by Local Governments (Istanbul Çekmeköy District Example). Unpublished Master's Thesis, Bahçeşehir University Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul.
4. Beatley, T. (2019). Biophilic cities: Integrating nature into urban design and planning. Island Press.
5. Carmichael, C., & McCole, D. (2014). Understanding motivations of potential partners to develop a public outdoor recreation center in an urban area. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 7, 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2014.09.001
6. Chavez, D. J., Winter, P. L., & Baas, J. M. (1993). Recreational mountain biking: A management perspective. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 11, 29-29.
7. Chen, C., Zhang, T., Gu, X., Lee, J., Ren, S., & Wang, H. (2020). Understanding adolescents’ need support, need satisfaction, and health-related outcomes: A self-determination health behavior perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1), 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010104
8. Çoban, B. (2002). Public Expectations from Municipalities Regarding Sports Services (Elazığ Municipality Example). Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Gazi University Institute of Health Sciences, Ankara.

9. Dalglish, C. (2012). Archaeology and landscape ethics. World Archaeology, 44(3), 327-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2012.723320
10. Deng, J., Qiang, S., Walker, G. J., & Zhang, Y. (2003). Assessment on and perception of visitors' environmental impacts of nature tourism: A case study of Zhangjiajie National Forest Park, China. Journal of sustainable tourism, 11(6), 529-548. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580308667219
11. Floyd, M. F., Bocarro, J. N., & Thompson, T. D. (2008). Research on race and ethnicity in leisure studies: A review of five major journals. Journal of Leisure Research, 40(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2008.11950130
12. Gibson, F., Lloyd, J., Bain, S., & Hottell, D. (2008). Green design and sustainability in sport and recreation facilities. The Smart Journal, 4(2), 26-33.
13. Gilderbloom, J. I., Riggs, W. W., & Meares, W. L. (2015). Does walkability matter? An examination of walkability’s impact on housing values, foreclosures and crime. Cities, 42, 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.08.001
14. Hardy, A., & Aryal, J. (2020). Using innovations to understand tourist mobility in national parks. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(2), 263-283. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1670186
15. 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
16. Ho, C. H., Sasidharan, V., Elmendorf, W., Willits, F. K., Graefe, A., & Godbey, G. (2005). Gender and ethnic variations in urban park preferences, visitation, and perceived benefits. Journal of leisure research, 37(3), 281-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2005.11950054
17. Jang, Y. S., Yoo, R. H., & Lee, J. H. (2020). The characteristics of forest leisure activities and demographic factors influencing visitor preference. Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science, 109(2), 231-242. https://doi.org/10.14578/jkfs.2020.109.2.231
18. Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J., & Mador, M. (2011). Biophilic design: the theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life. John Wiley & Sons.
19. Kyle, G., Graefe, A., & Manning, R. (2005). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in recreational settings. Environment and behavior, 37(2), 153-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916504269654
20. Manning, R., Valliere, W., Minteer, B., Wang, B., & Jacobi, C. (2000). Crowding in Parks and Outdoor Recreation: A Theoretical, Empirical, and Managerial Analysis. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 18(4), 57-72.
21. Rideout, D. B., Wei, Y., Kernohan, N., & Kirsch, A. G. (2022). A Potential Framework for Allocating National Park Service Budgets. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5, 716569. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.716569
22. Ryan, R. M., Weinstein, N., Bernstein, J., Brown, K. W., Mistretta, L., & Gagné, M. (2010). Vitalizing effects of being outdoors and in nature. Journal of environmental psychology, 30(2), 159-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.009
23. Scott, D. S., & Fletcher, T. (2023). Emotions and leisure: new insights and perspectives. Leisure Studies, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2023.2243653
24. Whiting, J. W., Larson, L. R., Green, G. T., & Kralowec, C. (2017). Outdoor recreation motivation and site preferences across diverse racial/ethnic groups: A case study of Georgia state parks. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 18, 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2017.02.001
25. 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