Dönüşüm Alanlarında Yaşam Kalitesi: Ankara, Akpınar Mahallesi’nden Ampirik Bulgular

Bu çalışma, dönüşüm alanlarında yaşayanların kişisel değerlendirmelerinden yola çıkarak yaşam kalitesi kavramını tartışmaktadır. Sosyal bilimciler tarafından insanların refah, memnuniyet ve mutluluğunu değerlendirmek üzere geliştirilen yaşam kalitesi kavramı, yaşama alanlarının koşullarının insanların ihtiyaç, beklenti ve taleplerini karşılayacak biçimde uyarlanması konusunu gündeme getirmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı mahalle ölçeğinde yürütülen ampirik bir araştırma ile Türkiye'de dönüşüm alanlarındaki yaşam kalitesini değerlendirecek kapsamlı ve bütüncül bir çerçeve geliştirmektir. Çalışmada kullanılan veri seti Ankara'nın dönüşüm geçirmiş bir mahallesi olan Akpınar Mahallesin'de ikamet eden 359 hanehalkıyla gerçekleştirilmiş olan bir yaşam kalitesi anketi uygulanması yoluyla elde edilmiştir. Araştırmanın yöntemsel çerçevesi kapsamlı bir literatür taraması sonucunda elde edilen çok boyutlu kentsel yaşam göstergelerinin (kentsel çevrenin ekonomik, ekolojik, fiziki ve sosyal boyutlarını kapsayan) belirlenmesini ve bu göstergelerin yaşam kalitesi ile ilişkilerinin analiz edilmesi aşamalarını içermektedir. Kentsel çevre kalitesine yönelik çok sayıda çalışmanın varlığına karşın, yaşam kalitesinin ölçülmesinde kullanılan kabul edilmiş ortak bir kavramsal çerçeve bulunmamaktadır. Bu nedenle, bu araştırma konut ve kentsel çevreyi birlikte ele alarak hanehalklarının yaşam kalitesini değerlendirmek üzere nitel ve nicel araştırma yöntemlerini kullanmıştır. Çalışmanın bulguları modern yaşamın kalitesinin gereği olarak yaşayanların sosyal, politik ve mekansal koşullarını ve ihtiyaçlarını anlamak ihtiyacını ortaya koymaktadır. Araştırmanın bulguları doğrultusunda, mahalle ölçeğinde mekan odaklı bir perspektifle yaşam kalitesini artırmak üzere politika önerileri geliştirilmiştir

Quality of Life in Regeneration Areas: Empirical Findings from the Akpınar Neighbourhood, Ankara, Turkey

This article is a discussion of the concept of quality of life in a regeneration area based on the personal evaluation of residents. Developed by social scientists to evaluate people’s well-being, satisfaction, and happiness, the concept of quality of life raises the issue of adapting the conditions of living spaces to meet people’s needs, expectations, and demands. The aim of this study was to establish an integrated and comprehensive framework for evaluating the quality of life in a regeneration case in Turkey through empirical research conducted at the neighborhood level. Data were collected from 359 households in the regenerated neighborhood of Akpınar, in the city of Ankara, using a questionnaire to inquire about the quality of life. The methodological framework of the study included a theory-based choice of indicators identified in a comprehensive literature review, including economic, ecological, physical, and social aspects of an urban environment, and an analysis of the relationship of the indicators to quality of life. Despite the diverse literature on urban environmental quality, there is no uniform, generally accepted conceptual framework to measure quality of life. Therefore, in this research, a mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis was adopted to assess the quality of life of the residents with respect to their housing and urban environment. The findings suggested that modern quality of life requires understanding the social, political, spatial conditions, and needs of residents. Based on the findings of the study, policy recommendations were developed to enhance quality of life at the neighborhood level from a space-sensitive perspective

PDF

___

Alberini, P., Riganti, P., & Longo, A. (2003). Can people value the aesthetic and use services of urban sites? Evidence from a survey of Belfast residents. Journal of Cultural Economics, 27(3-4), 193-213. DOI: 10.1023/A:1026317209968.
Andrew, F.M. and S.B. Withey (1976). Social Indicators of Well Being: America’s Perception of Life Quality, Plenum Press, New York
Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., & Bonnes, M. (2003). Indexes of perceived residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in urban environments: a confirmation study on the city of Rome. Landscape and urban planning, 65(1), 41-52.
Campbell, A., Converse, P., & Rodgers, W.(1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, Evaluations and Satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Domanski, H., Ostrowska, A., Przybysz, D., Romaniuk, A., Krieger, H., (2006). First European Quality of Life Survey 2003, European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions, Dublin, ISBN 92-897-0935-9.
Enosh, N., Leslau, A., Shacham, J. (1984). Residential quality assessment: a conceptual model and empirical test, Social Indicators Research (14) 453-76.
Eurostat, web page (2015). Quality of life indicators - economic and physical safety, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/ Quality_of_life_indicators_-_economic_and_physical_safety, last accessed on December 2015.
Ewing, R., Handy, S., Brownson, R. C., Clemente, O., & Winston, E. (2006). Identifying and measuring urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 3 (1): 223-240.
Fadda, G. and Jirón, P. (1999). Quality of life and gender: a methodology for urban research, Environment and Urbanization, 11(2): 261-270. Flores, A., Pickett, S.T.A, Zipperer, W.C., Pouyat, R.V., Pirani, R. (2000).
Adopting a modern ecological view of the metropolitan landscape: the case of greenscape system for the New York region. Landscape and urban planning, 39, 295-308.
Fried, M., Gleicher, P. (1961). Some sources of residential satisfaction in an urban slum, Journal of the American Institute of Planners (19) 539-68.
Galster, G.C., Hesser, G.W. (1981) Residential satisfaction compositional and contextual correlates, Environment and Behavior (13) 735–58.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings, Prince-Hall Inc, Fourth Edition, New Jersey. Haliloğlu Kahraman, Z. E. (2013). Dimensions of housing satisfaction: a case study based on perceptions of rural migrants living in Dikmen, METU Journal of Faculty of Architecture, 30(1): 1-27. DOI: 10.4305/METU. JFA.2013.1.1
Hazelton, J. (1985). Quality of Life Indicators for Austin. Report by the Quality of Life Advisory Committee to the Quality of Life Division, Austin Chamber of Commerce.
Hemphill, L., Berry, J., and McGreal, S. (2004). An Indicator-based Approach to Measuring Sustainable Urban Regeneration Performance: Part 1, Conceptual Foundations and Methodological Framework, Urban Studies, (41:4) 725-755.
Kasarda, J.D., Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review (39) 328-39. Kelekçi, Ö. L., Berköz, L. (2006) Mass housing: User satisfaction in housing and its environment in İstanbul, Turkey, European Journal of Housing Policy (6: 1) 77–99.
Marans, R.W. (2003), Understanding Environmental Quality Through Quality of Life Studies: The 2001 DAS and its use of Subjective and Objective Indicators, Landscape and Urban Planning , 65: 73-83.
Marans, R.W., Spreckelmeyer, K.F. (1981). Evaluating Built Environments: A Behavioral Approach. University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research and the Architectural Research Laboratory, Ann Arbor.
Marans, R.W., Kweon, B-S, (2011) The Quality of life in Metro Detroit at the beginning of the Millennium, in Marans, R.W. and Stimson, R.J. (eds) Investigating quality of urban life: Theory, methods, and empirical research, Social Indicators Research Series, vol.45, Springer, New York. Milbrath, L., and Sahr, R. (1975). Perceptions of environmental quality. Social Indicators Research,1, 397–438.
Milbrath, L.W. (1978). Indicators of environmental quality, UNESCO Reports and papers in the social sciences no.38, pp.32-56.Place de Fontenoy, 75700 Paris, France, ISBN 92-3-011 539-7.
Myers, D. (1988). Building Knowledge about Quality of Life for Urban Planning, Journal of the American Planning Association, 54:3, 347-358, DOİ: 10.1080/01944368808976495.
Newman, P.W.G. (1999). Sustainability and cities: exte nding metabolism model. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33, 219-226.
OECD (2013). OECD Guidelines on measuring subjective well-being, OECD Publishing, DOI:10.1787/9789264191655-en Onibokun, A. (1974). Evaluating consumers’ satisfaction with housing. Journal of the American Institute of Planners (40) 189–200.
Pacione, M. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—a social geographical perspective, Landscape and Urban Planning, 65: 19–30.
Roberts, P., and Sykes, H. (2000). Urban regeneration: A Handbook, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications. State Planning Organization- SPO, (1996). Socio-economic development index survey of counties in Turkey, State Planning Organization Press: Ankara.
State Planning Organization- SPO, (2004) Socio-economic development index survey of counties in Turkey, State Planning Organization Press: Ankara.
Türkoğlu, H. (1997). Residents’ satisfaction of housing environments: the case of İstanbul, Turkey, Landscape and Urban Planning (39) 55–67.
Van Kamp, I., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G., & De Hollander, A. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being: Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape and urban planning, 65(1), 5-18.
Weidemann, S., Anderson, J.R. (1985). A conceptual framework for residential satisfaction. in: Altman, I., Werner, C.H. (Eds.), Home Environments. Plenum, New York.
Zehner, R. (1977). Indicators of the quality of life in new communities. Cambridge: Ballinger.