Ahmet Salih Günaydın, Murat Yücekaya

The Evaluation of the Perceptibility and Accessibility: The Case of Gaziantep

PurposeThe study focuses on accessibility to green spaces. In this context, the study aims to determine the accessibility of green areas in metric and topological terms, and to examine and discuss their social and functional contributions.Design/Methodology/ApproachThe study was designed in 5 stages. In the first phase of the study, a convex area map was formed within the limit of accessibility based on the literature research. In the second phase,the axial map was created. In the third phase, the integration map was used to determine the visual perceptibility of the green areas within the study area. The Depthmap software was used in analysis and creation of the maps. In the fourth phase, all findings obtained are explained and discussed with detailed graphics and maps. In the last phase of the study, some suggestions regarding the study area and general spatial planning approach were developed in the light of scientific principles in order to ensure urban green areas' contribution to the city and residentsFindingsAll analysis results were evaluated in a holistic manner and the spatial relationship between residential areas and green areas in the study area was found to be weak and the perception of green areas was moderate.Research Limitations/ImplicationsFurther studies should be conducted to evaluate the accessibility of several parks of different sizes with other various methods. In the study, accessibility values were obtained with the Space syntax method. These values can be compared to each other with other analysis methods. Practical ImplicationsThis analysis will enable issues such as park locations in city plans, their size, and intervals to be more professionally handled. Thus, living space conditions and indirectly cities will be improved. As a result, urban life quality will flourish.Social ImplicationsUrban green spaces are important components of the city in that they contribute positively to urban residents in terms of environmental, social, economic etc. aspects. For this reason, it is extremely important for people to have easy access to parks for socialization purposes.Originality/ValueItisconsideredthatexaminingaccessibilitywiththespacesyntaxmethod,unlikeotherconventional methods, adds an important value to the study.

PDF

___

Afacan, Y. (2015). Yaşanabilir Kentsel Mekanlar İçin Erişilebilirliğin Önemi: Çukurambar Kentsel Dönüşüm Örneği. Dosya 36: Mekanlarda Erişilebilirlik, Kullanılabilirlik ve Yaşanabilirlik, 3, 20–25.
Alalouch, C., Aspinall, P., & Smith, H. (2009). On locational preferences for privacy in hospital wards. Facilities, 27(3/4), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770910933125
Altunkasa, M. F. (2004). Adana’nın Kentsel Gelişim Süreci ve Yeşil Alanlar. Adana Kent Konseyi Çevre Çalışma Grubu Bireysel Raporu.
Asami, Y., Kubat, A. S., & Istek, C. (2001). Characterization of the street networks in the traditional Turkish urban form. 21. https://doi.org/10.1068/b2718
Baran, P. K., Rodríguez, D. A., & Khattak, A. J. (2008). Space Syntax and Walking in a New Urbanist and Suburban Neighbourhoods. Journal of Urban Design, 13(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800701803498
Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29(2), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0
Dalton, N. (2001). Fractional Configurational Analysis And a solution to the Manhattan problem. Proceedings ., 14.
Daniels, B., Zaunbrecher, B. S.,Paas, B., Ottermanns, R., Ziefle, M., & Roß-Nickoll, M. (2018). Assessment of urban green space structures and their quality from a multidimensional perspective. Science of The Total Environment, 615, 1364–1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.167
de la Barrera, F., Reyes-Paecke, S., Harris, J., Bascuñán, D., & Farías, J. M. (2016). People’s perception influences on the use of green spaces in socio-economically differentiated neighborhoods. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.09.007
Department of the Environment. (1994). Vital and viable town centres: Meeting the challenge, Department of the Environment—Publication Index | NBS. HMSO. https://www.thenbs.com/PublicationIndex/documents/details?Pub=DOE&DocID=257855
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
Fan, P., Xu, L., Yue, W., & Chen, J. (2017). Accessibility of public urban green space in an urban periphery: The case of Shanghai. Landscape and Urban Planning, 165, 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.11.007
Fladd, S. G. (2017). Social syntax: An approach to spatial modification through the reworking of space syntax for archaeological applications. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 47, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2017.05.002
Francis, J. (2010). Associations between Public Space and Mental Health in New Residential Developments [PhD]. The University of Western Australia.
Gül, A., & Küçük, V. (2001). Kentsel Açık-Yeşil Alanlar Ve Isparta Kenti Örneğinde İrdelenmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, A(2), 27–48.
Gupta, K., Roy, A., Luthra, K., Maithani, S., & Mahavir. (2016). GIS based analysis for assessing the accessibility at hierarchical levels of urban green spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 18, 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.005
Hanson, J., & Hillier, B. (1987). The architecture of community: Some new proposals on the social consequences of architectural and planning decisions. Architecture et Comportement/Architecture and Behaviour, 3(3), 251–273.
Hillier, B, Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, T., & Xu, J. (1993). Natural movement: Or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20(1), 29–66. https://doi.org/10.1068/b200029
Hillier, Bill. (2001, May). A theory of the city as object: Or, how spatial laws mediate the social construction of urban space. Presented at: 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. (2001). 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. http://undertow.arch.gatech.edu/homepages/3sss/
Hillier, Bill. (2007). Space is the machine: A configurational theory of architecture. Space Syntax. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/3881/1/SITM.pdfHillier, Bill. (2008). Space and spatiality: What the built environment needs from social theory. Building Research & Information, 36(3), 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210801928073
Hillier, Bill, Burdett, R., Peponis, J., & Penn, A. (1987). Creating Life: Or, Does Architecture Determine Anything? Arch. 8 Comport./Arch. Behav.,3(3), 233–250.
Hillier, Bill, & Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597237
Hillier, Bill, & Iida, S. (2005). Network and Psychological Effects in Urban Movement. In A. G. Cohn & D. M. Mark (Eds.), Spatial Information Theory(Vol. 3693, pp. 475–490). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11556114_30
Hillier, Bill, & Lida, S. (2005). Network effects and psychological effects: A theory of urban movement. Network Effects and Psychological Effects: A Theory of Urban Movement, 1, 553–564.
Hillier, Bill, Turner, A., Yang, T., & Park, H. T. (2007, June 12). Metric and Topo-Geometric Properties of Urban Street Networks: Metric and Topo-Geometric Properties of Urban Street Networks. In Proceedings of the 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul Turkey.
Karimi, K. (2012). A configurational approach to analytical urban design: ‘Space syntax’ methodology. URBAN DESIGN International, 17(4), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2012.19
Koohsari, M. J., Badland, H., Mavoa, S., Villanueva, K., Francis, J., Hooper, P., Owen, N., & Giles-Corti, B. (2018). Are public open space attributes associated with walking and depression? Cities, 74, 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.11.011
Koohsari, M. J., Kaczynski, A. T., Giles-Corti, B., & Karakiewicz, J. A. (2013). Effects of access to public open spaces on walking: Is proximity enough? Landscape and Urban Planning, 117, 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.04.020
Koohsari, M. J., Mavoa, S., Villanueva, K., Sugiyama, T., Badland, H., Kaczynski, A. T., Owen, N., & Giles-Corti, B. (2015). Public open space, physical activity, urban design and public health: Concepts, methods and research agenda. Health & Place, 33, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2015.02.009
La Rosa, D. (2014). Accessibility to greenspaces: GIS based indicators for sustainable planning in a dense urban context. Ecological Indicators, 42, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.011
La Rosa, D., & Privitera, R. (2013). Characterization of non-urbanized areas for land-use planning of agricultural and green infrastructure in urban contexts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.012
Lebendiger, Y., & Lerman, Y. (2019). Applying space syntax for surface rapid transit planning. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 128, 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.07.016
Leichenko, R. M., & Solecki, W. D. (2008). Consumption, Inequity, and Environmental Justice: The Making of New Metropolitan Landscapes in Developing Countries. Society & Natural Resources, 21(7), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920701744223
Mahdzar, S. S. S. (2008). Sociability Vs Accessibility Urban Street Life.[PhD, University College London]. /paper/Sociability-vs-accessibility-urban-street-life.-Mahdzar/db18bff8dae457cf496b9148660068c24822be6f
Mohamed, A. A., & Stanek, D. (2020). The influence of street network configuration on sexual harassment patterns in Cairo. Cities, 98, 102583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102583
Mustafa, F. A., & Rafeeq, D. A. (2019). Assessment of elementary school buildings in Erbil city using space syntax analysis and school teachers′ feedback. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 58(3), 1039–1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.09.007
Nes, A. van, & Yamu, C. (2017). Space Syntax: A method to measure urban space related to social, economic and cognitive factors. In The Virtual and the Real in Planning and Urban Design: Perspectives, Practices and Applications(pp. 136–150). Routledge.
Nicholls, S. (2001). Measuring the accessibility and equity of public parks: A case study using GIS. Managing Leisure, 6(4), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/13606710110084651
Önder, S., & Polat, A. T. (2012). Kentsel Açık-Yeşil Alanların Kent Yaşamındaki Yeri Ve Önemi. Kentsel Peyzaj Alanlarının Oluşumu ve Bakım Esasları Semineri, 73–96.
Özbil, A., Peponis, J., & Stone, B. (2011). Understanding the link between street connectivity, land use and pedestrian flows. URBAN DESIGN International, 16(2), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2011.2
Özer, Ö., & Kubat, A. S. (2007). WALKING INITIATIVES: a quantitative movement analysis. Proceedings, 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, İstanbul.
Penn, A. (2003). Space Syntax And Spatial Cognition: Or Why the Axial Line? Environment and Behavior, 36(1), 30–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502238864
Sallis, J. F., Floyd, M. F., Rodríguez, D. A., & Saelens, B. E. (2012). Role of Built Environments in Physical Activity, Obesity, and Cardiovascular Disease. Circulation, 125(5), 729–737. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.110.969022
Sanesi, G., Lafortezza, R., Bonnes, M., & Carrus, G. (2006). Comparison of two different approaches for assessing the psychological and social dimensions of green spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5(3), 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.06.001
Stessens, P., Khan, A. Z., Huysmans, M., & Canters,F. (2017). Analysing urban green space accessibility and quality: A GIS-based model as spatial decision support for urban ecosystem services in Brussels. Ecosystem Services, 28, 328–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.016
Topçu, M. (2019). Morphological Structures of Historical Turkish Cities. Iconarp International J. of Architecture and Planning, 7(Special Issue “Urban Morphology”), 212–229. https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2019.86
TÜİK. (2018). Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=temelist
Ünlü, T. (2018). Mekânın Biçimlendirilmesi ve Kentsel Morfoloji. İn [DeğişKent] Değişen Kent, Mekan ve Biçim, Türkiye Kentsel Morfoloji Araştırma Ağı II. Kentsel Morfoloji Sempozyumu(pp. 59–70).
Van Herzele, A., & Wiedemann, T. (2003). A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63(2), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00192-5
Ward Thompson, C. (2011). Linking landscape and health: The recurring theme. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99(3–4), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.10.006
Wright Wendel, H. E., Zarger, R. K., & Mihelcic, J. R. (2012). Accessibility and usability: Green space preferences, perceptions, and barriers in a rapidly urbanizing city in Latin America. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(3), 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.003
Xiao, Y., Wang, Z., Li, Z., & Tang, Z. (2017). An assessment of urban park access in Shanghai – Implications for the social equity in urban China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.08.007