SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi / 2024 / Cilt: 21 Sayı: 2

Evaluation of playgrounds in terms of design criteria: The case study of Aydın-Efeler

Çocuk Oyun Alanlarının Tasarım Kriterleri Açısından Değerlendirilmesi: Aydın-Efeler Örneği

Abdullah Akpınar(ADNAN MENDERES ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3684-6879
Pages
195–203
Publication Date
2024-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results showed that İsmet Sezgin Park was the most suitable park in terms of design criteria with 175 points, while Ahmet Emin Erkayın Park was the least suitable park with 77 points.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Parks that satisfy people's daily recreational needs are characterized as places where playgrounds satisfy their mental, physical, and social needs.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 32 parks were examined in terms of accessibility, the condition of play equipment, equipment elements, ground coverings, boundary elements, and the principles of plant material.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that İsmet Sezgin Park was the most suitable park in terms of design criteria with 175 points, while Ahmet Emin Erkayın Park was the least suitable park with 77 points.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Çocuk oyun alanları · parklar · tasarım ilkeleri

Abstract

Parks that satisfy people's daily recreational needs are characterized as places where playgrounds satisfy their mental, physical, and social needs. However, playgrounds that are not designed according to landscape design criteria cannot meet the needs of children. For this reason, this study examined the adequacy of playgrounds in parks in the Aydın-Efeler district in terms of landscape design criteria. A total of 32 parks were examined in terms of accessibility, the condition of play equipment, equipment elements, ground coverings, boundary elements, and the principles of plant material. The results showed that İsmet Sezgin Park was the most suitable park in terms of design criteria with 175 points, while Ahmet Emin Erkayın Park was the least suitable park with 77 points. At the end of the study, suggestions were made for playgrounds.

Özet

İnsanların günlük rekreasyon ihtiyaçlarını karşılayan parklar, içerlerinden barındırdıkları çocuk oyun alanları ile çocukların için zihinsel, fiziksel ve sosyal ihtiyaçlarını karşıladıkları mekanlar olarak ön plana çıkmaktadır. Ancak peyzaj tasarım kriterlerine göre tasarlanmayan çocuk oyun alanları, çocukların gereksinimlerini karşılayamamaktadır. Bu sebeple bu çalışmada Aydın Efeler ilçesinde bulunan parklardaki çocuk oyun alanlarının peyzaj tasarım kriterleri açısında yeterliliği incelenmiştir. Toplam 32 park erişilebilirlik, oyun ekipman durumu, donatı elemanları, zemin kaplamaları, sınırlama elemanları ve bitki materyali ilkelerine göre uygunluğu incelenmiştir. Yapılan inceleme ve değerlendirme sonucunda tasarım kriterleri açısından en uygun park 175 puanla İsmet Sezgin Parkı, en az uygun olan park ise 77 puanla Ahmet Emin Erkayın Parkı olmuştur. Çalışma sonucunda çocuk oyun alanları için öneriler getirilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Akpınar, A. (2024). Evaluation of playgrounds in terms of design criteria: The case study of Aydın-Efeler. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 2, 195–203. https://doi.org/10.25308/aduziraat.1527601

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (28)

  1. Akpinar A (2017) Urban green spaces for children: A cross-sectional study of associations with distance, physical activity, screen time, general health, and overweight. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 25: 66-73.
  2. Ballıoğlu S, Demirel Ö, Polat Z (2022) Aydın Kenti Örneğinde Gençlik Parkı Çocuk Oyun Alanının Yeterliliği ve Tasarım İlkeleri Yönünden İncelenmesi. In: Demirel Ö, Düzgüneş E (eds), Peyzaj Araştırmaları II. Livre de Lyon, Lyon, pp 411-435.
  3. Bayraktaroğlu B, Büke A (2015) Çocuk oyun alanlarının evrensellik ölçütleri açısından incelenmesi: Fenerbahçe-Pendik sahil şeridi örneği. Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi 3(3): 371-378.
  4. Brown H, Pearson N, Braithwaite R, Brown W, Biddle S (2012) Physical activity interventions and depression in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Sci. Med. Sport 15: S343.
  5. Çetin G (2003) Üsküdar İlçesi’ndeki Çocuk Oyun Alanlarının Yeterlilik ve Kalite Açısından İncelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  6. Dadvand P, Villanueva C, Font-Ribera L, Martinez D, Basagaña X, Belmonte J, Nieuwenhuijsen M (2014) Risks and Benefits of Green Spaces for Children: A Cross-Sectional Study of Associations with Sedentary Behavior, Obesity, Asthma, and Allergy. Environ. Health Perspect. 122: 1329-1335.
  7. Ekeland E, Heian F, Hagen K, Abbott J, Nordheim L (2004) Exercise to improve self-esteem in children and young people. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 1.
  8. Fisher A, Boyle J, Paton J, Tomporowski P, Watson C, McColl J, Reilly J (2011) Effects of a physical education intervention on cognitive function in young children: Randomized controlled pilot study. Pediatrics 11: 97-106.
  9. Gunter K, Almstedt H, Janz K (2012) Physical activity in childhood may be the key to optimizing lifespan skeletal health. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 40: 13-21.
  10. Guthold R, Stevens GA, Riley LM, Bull FC (2018) Worldwide trends in insufficient physical activity from 2001 to 2016: A pooled analysis of 358 population-based surveys with 1.9 million participants. Lancet Glob. Health 6: 1077-1086.
  11. Hallal PC, Victora CG, Azevedo MR, Wells JC (2006) Adolescent physical activity and health: A systematic review. Sports Med. 6: 1019-1030.
  12. Hills AP, Andersen LB, Byrne NM (2011) Physical activity and obesity in children. Br. J. Sports Med. 45: 866-870.
  13. Janssen I, LeBlanc AG (2010) Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 7.
  14. Jose K, Blizzard L, Dwyer T, McKercher C, Venn A (2011) Childhood and adolescent predictors of leisure time physical activity during the transition from adolescence to adulthood: A population-based cohort study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 8.
  15. Kellert S (2005) Nature and childhood development. In: Kellert S (eds), Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature Connection. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 63-89.
  16. Kılıçaslan Ç, Malkoç True E, Deniz B, Kara B, Polat Z, Göktuğ TH, Kesgin Atak B (2017) Mekânsal Yeterlilik Kapsamında Aydın Kentsel Alanındaki Parkların Analizi. SAGE Yayıncılık, Ankara.
  17. Koçan N (2012) Çocuk oyun alanlarının yeterliliği üzerine bir araştırma: Uşak kenti Kemalöz mahallesi örneği. Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Fen Bilimleri Dergisi 28(4): 315-321.
  18. Küçükerbaş EV, Özkan MB, Altuğ Turan İ, Malkoç True E, Sönmez Türel H, Kılıçaslan Ç (2017) Kamusal Dış Mekan Olarak İzmir Kenti Çocuk Oyun Alanlarının İrdelenmesi. SAGE Yayıncılık, İzmir.
  19. Lachowycz K, Jones AP, Page AS, Wheeler BW, Cooper RA (2012) What can global positioning systems tell us about the contribution of different types of urban greenspace to children’s physical activity? Health Place 18: 586-594.
  20. Philbrook L, El-Sheikh M (2016) Associations between neighborhood context, physical activity, and sleep in adolescents. Sleep Health 2: 205-210.
  21. Rasberry CN, Lee SM, Robin L, Laris BA, Russell LA, Coyle KK, Nihiser AJ (2011) The association between school-based physical activity, including physical education, and academic performance: A systematic review of the literature. Prev. Med. 52: 10-20.
  22. Reilly JJ, Kelly J (2011) Long-term impact of overweight and obesity in childhood and adolescence on morbidity and premature mortality in adulthood: Systematic review. Int. J. Obes. 35: 891-898.
  23. Sağlık Bakanlığı (2014) Türkiye Beslenme ve Sağlık Araştırması 2010: Beslenme Durumu ve Alışkanlıklarının Değerlendirilmesi. Sağlık Bakanlığı Sağlık Araştırmaları Genel Müdürlüğü, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi, Ankara.
  24. Şık B (2017) Çocukluk Çağı Obezitesi Raporu. Sosyal Haklar Derneği, İstanbul.
  25. Strong WB, Malina RM, Blimkie CJ, Daniels SR, Dishman RK, Gutin B, Rowland TW (2005) Evidence Based Physical Activity for School-age Youth. J. Pediatr. 146: 732-737.
  26. The Ministry of Health (2014) Physical Activity Guidelines for Turkey. The Ministry of Health of Turkey, Public Health Institution, Department of Obesity, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases, Ankara.
  27. WHO (2010) Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health. World Health Organization, Geneva.
  28. Wicker AW (1979) Ecological psychology: Some recent and prospective developments. American Psychologist 34(9): 755.