Melek GÖREGENLİ, Pelin KARAKUŞ, Yeşim Özgen KÖSTEN, İrem UMUROĞLU

Mahalleye Bağlılık Düzeyinin Kent Kimliği ile İlişkisi İçinde İncelenmesi

Özet Çevre ve Topluluk Psikolojisi alanlarında, mahalleler, sadece coğrafi açıdan belirli sınırlara sahip olan sabit me- kanlar olarak görülmemişlerdir. Mahallelerin, kentlerle ilişkileri fiziksel ve sosyal özellikleri bakımından farklı bi- çimlerde tanımlanmış; sakinlerinin yaşadıkları yere atfettikleri anlamlar ve mahalleler arasında farklılaşan yaşam biçimleri irdelenmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu araştırmada, mahalleye bağlılık olgusu, kent kimliği ile ilişkisi içinde irdelen- meye çalışılmıştır. Alan araştırması- İzmitin, Ali Kahya Mahallesinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmaya 88 erkek 73 kadın olmak üzere toplam 161 kişi katılmıştır. Tesadüfi örnekleme yoluyla seçilen tüm katılımcılara Günlük Yaşam Alanlarına İlişkin Memnuniyet Ölçeği, Mahalleye Bağlılık Ölçeği ve Kent Kimliği Ölçeği uygulanmıştır. Mahalleye Bağlılık Ölçeğinde yer alan maddelerin açımlayıcı faktör analizi ile incelenmesi sonucunda katılımcıların yaşadıkla- rı mahalleye ilişkin geliştirdikleri bağlılık düzeyinin Duygusal Bağlılık, İlgi ve Sosyal Bağlılık olmak üzere üç temel bağlılık boyutu temelinde açıklandığı görülmüştür. Aşamalı çoklu regresyon analizi sonuçlarına göre Mahalleye Bağlılık düzeyine katkısı olan değişkenlerin sırasıyla mahallede yaşamaktan memnuniyet, mahallede yaşama süresi, mahalle sakinleriyle ilişkilerden memnuniyet, sokaktaki yaşamdan memnuniyet, cinsiyet ve son olarak İzmit Kent Kimliği olduğu görülmüştür. Elde edilen bu sonuçlar ilgili literatür kapsamında tartışılmış, gelecek çalışmalar için önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

A Study on Neighbourhood Attachment in Relation with Urban Related Identity

Abstract From the view point of environmental and community psychology perspectives, neighborhood is not only concep- tualized as a constant spatial unit which has sharp, impermeable geographical borders. Within the psychological view, there are several areas of application currently receiving considerable attention in research and policy develop- ment. One is the domain of physical and social relations of the neighborhood with the city. The other is the research has been devoted to the understanding of meanings of the neighborhood which are attributed by the inhabitants. Moreover, another remarkable research domain is the inquiry of different life styles of inhabitants among different neighborhoods. The aim of the present study was to explore the neighborhood attachment in relation to urban-related identity. A field research was conducted in Alikahya neighborhood, Izmit, Turkey. The sample consisted of 161 participants (88 males, 73 females). The participants were selected by a random sampling method. All participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire including several questions related to socio-demographic variables; questions related to spatial experience; questions related to Satisfaction with Several Domains of Daily Life; Neighborhood Attachment Scale and Izmit Urban-Related Identity Scale. A principal component analysis yielded three factors that explained 52.1 % of the total variance. The findings of multiple regression analysis showed that satisfaction with living in the neighbourhood, the length of residence in the neighborhood, satisfaction with social life in the neighborhood, satisfaction with the street life, gender and the urban-related identity are the significant predictors of neighbourhood attachment. The findings were discussed on the basis of related literature and given cultural context.

PDF

___

Bell, P. A., Fisher, J. D. ve Loomis, R. J. (1978). Environmental psychology. Philadelphia: Saunders Company.
Bilgiç, E., Kösten, Y. Ö. ve Duygun, G. (2011). İzmit Beledi- yesi Üçyol, Alikahya, Akmeşe ve Kuruçeşme mahalle meydanlarının yeniden tasarlanması ve cephe sağlıklaş- tırılması projesi için ön inceleme sonuçlarına ilişkin ra- por. Kocaeli: Kocaeli Üniversitesi Mimarlık ve Tasarım Fakültesi.
Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M. ve Ercolani, A. P. (1999). Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psy- chology, 19, 331-352.
Brown, B., Perkins, D. D ve Brown, G. (2003). Place attach- ment in a revitalizing neighbourhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental Psy- chology, 23, 259-271.
Comstock, N., L. Miriam Dickinson, L. M., Marshall, J. A., Soobader, M., Turbin, M. S., Buchenau, M. ve Litt, J. S. (2010). Neighborhood attachment and its correlates: Exploring neighborhood conditions, collective efficacy, and gardening. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 435-442.
Cuba, L. ve Hummon, D. M. (1993). A place called home: iden- tification with dwelling, community and region. The So- ciological Quarterly, 34, 111-131.
Fried, M. (1982). Residential attachment: Sources of residential and community satisfaction. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 107-119.
Fried, M. (2000). Continuities and discontinuities of place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 193-205. Galster, (2001). On the nature of neighbourhood. Urban Stud- ies, 38, 2111-2124.
Giddens, A. (1994). Modernliğin sonuçları. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
Gifford, R., Scanell, L., Kormos, C., Smolova, L., Biel, A. ve Boncu, S., (2009).Temporal pessimism and spatial opti- mism in environmental assessment: An 18-nation study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 1-12.
Göregenli, (2010). Çevre psikolojisinde temel konular. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Gustafson, P. (2001). Meaning of place: Everday experience and theoretical conceptualizations. Journal of Environ- mental Psychology, 21, 5-16.
Hidalgo, M. C. ve Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environ- mental Psychology, 21, 273-281.
Hopkins, N. ve Dixon, J. (2006). Space, place, and identity: Issues of political psychology. Political Psychology, 27, 173-185
Hopkins, N., Reicher, S. ve Harrison, K. (2006). Young peoples deliberations on geographic mobility: Identity and cross- border relocation. Political Psychology, 27, 227-245.
Hummon, D. M. (1992). Community attachment: Local senti- ment and sense of place. I. Altman ve S. M. Low, (Ed.), Place attachment içinde. New York: Plenum.
Karakuş, P. ve Göregenli, M. (2008). Linking place attachment with social identity orientation: An examination of the re- lationship between place attachment, social identity ori- entation and integration to city. 29. ICP Congress, 20-25 Temmuz, Berlin.
Kasarda, J. D. ve Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review, 39, 328- 339.
Korpela, K. M. (1989). Place identity as a product of environ- mental self-regulation. Journal Environmental Psychol- ogy, 9, 241-259.
Krannich, R. S. ve Greider, T. (1984). Personal well-being in rapid growth and stable communities: Multiple indicators and contrasting results. Rural Sociology, 49, 541-552.
Lalli, M. (1992). Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement and emprical findings. Journal of Environmental Psy- choloy, 12, 285-303.
Lewicka, (2010). What makes neighbourhood different from home and city? Effects of place scale on place attach- ment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 35-51.
Lewicka, M. (2005). Ways to make people active: Role of place attachment, cultural capital and neighborhood ties. Jour- nal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 381-395.
Lewicka, M. (2007). Regional differentiation of identity: Com- parison of Poland and Ukraine]. Regional and Local Studies Special Issue, 1509-4995.
Lewicka, M. (2008). Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: restoring the forgotten city past. Journal of En- vironmental Psychology, 28, 209-231.
Liberman, N., Trope, Y. ve Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. A. W. Kruglanski ve E. T. Higgins, (Ed.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles içinde (353- 381). New York: The Guilford Press.
Low, S. M. ve Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: Human be- havior and environment. Advances in theory and research (cilt 12). New York & London: Plenum Pres.
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Nasar, J. (1983). Adult viewers preferences in residential scenes: A study of the relationship of environmental at- tributes to preference. Environment and Behavior, 15, 589-614.
Proshanksy, H. M. (1978). The city and self identity. Environ- ment& Behavior, 10, 147-170. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion.
Sampson, R. J. (1988). Local friendship ties and community at- tachment in mass society: A multilevel systemic model. American Sociological Review, 5, 766-779.
Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of community. Perspectives for community psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shamai, S. ve Ilatov, Z. (2005). Measuring sense of place: meth- odological aspects. Tijdschrift voor Economische en So- ciale Geografie, 96, 467-476.
Stokols, D. ve Schumaker, S. A., (1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings. J. H. Harvey, (Ed.), Cogni- tion, social behavior and the environment içinde (441- 488). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W. ve Wat- son, A. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: exam- ining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Lei- sure Sciences, 14, 29-46.
Wilson-Doenges, G. (2000). An explanation of sense of com- munity and fear of crime in gated communities. Environ- ment and Behavior, 32, 597-611.