SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Forest Science / 2025 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2

POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION OF THE NEW CITY PARK USING MULTICRITERIA DECISION-MAKING METHODS

ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YÖNTEMLERİ İLE YENİ ŞEHİR PARKI KULLANIM SONRASI DEĞERLENDİRMESİ

Sibel Akten(ISPARTA UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6242-9687
Pages
371–392
Publication Date
2025-10-27
🏛️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)

Thus, through the exchange of knowledge, it aims to provide an effective guide for sustainable and user-oriented landscape design and management by adopting park quality criteria as a reference for strategic spatial planning approaches in other cities as well.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:One of the biggest problems facing urban citizens today is time.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The problems experienced with rapid urbanization significantly affect the physical and mental health of the public.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Thus, through the exchange of knowledge, it aims to provide an effective guide for sustainable and user-oriented landscape design and management by adopting park quality criteria as a reference for strategic spatial planning approaches in other cities as well.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kullanıcı memnuniyeti · kent parkı kalitesi · AHP-TOPSİS analizi

Abstract

One of the biggest problems facing urban citizens today is time. In this intense and fast-paced environment, parks are among the most important areas that meet humanity's need to stop and rest. Parks are urban open and green spaces that can appeal to all users. The problems experienced with rapid urbanization significantly affect the physical and mental health of the public. Studies emphasize that urban open and green spaces improve quality of life and contribute significantly to people's physical and mental well-being. While studies focus on the planning, design, implementation, and management phases of open and green spaces, the usage and post-usage evaluation phases are often neglected. However, taking into account the thoughts and desires of park users (children, youth, seniors, etc.) is an important process for the effective management of the area. This research will contribute to identifying the landscape quality of parks, specifically focusing on the New City Park in Isparta's Çünür Neighborhood. It will provide local governments and administrators with insights into which quality criteria to prioritize when improving multifunctional green and open spaces within the context of sustainable development. Furthermore, it will offer an opportunity to evaluate these prioritized criteria for future landscape designs. Thus, through the exchange of knowledge, it aims to provide an effective guide for sustainable and user-oriented landscape design and management by adopting park quality criteria as a reference for strategic spatial planning approaches in other cities as well.

Özet

Kentli insanın günümüzde en büyük sorunlarından biri zamandır. Bu yoğun ve hızlı tempoda ise insanoğlunun durup dinlenme ihtiyacını karşılayacak en önemli alanların başında parklar gelmektedir. Parklar kullanıcıların tümüne hitap edebilen kentsel açık yeşil alanlardır. Hızlı kentleşme ile birlikte yaşanan sorunlar halkın fiziksel ve ruhsal sağlığını önemli ölçüde etkilemektedir. Yapılan çalışmalar kentlerde açık ve yeşil alanların yaşam kalitesini arttırdığı ve insanların fiziksel ve ruhsal iyileşmelerine önemli ölçüde katkı sağladığını vurgulamaktadır. Çalışmalarda açık ve yeşil alanlarının planlama, tasarım ve uygulama aşaması ile yönetim aşamalarının üzerinde durulurken, kullanım ve kullanım sonrası değerlendirme aşamaları genellikle ihmal edilmektedir. Ancak park kullanıcılarının (çocuklar, gençler, yaşlılar, vb.) düşünce ve isteklerinin göz önünde bulundurulması alanın etkin yönetimi için önemli bir süreçtir. Bu araştırma, Isparta Çünür Mahallesinde bulunan Yeni Şehir Parkı özelinde parkların peyzaj kalitesini ortaya koyarak yerel yönetimlere ve yöneticilere sürdürülebilir kalkınma bağlamında çok işlevli yeşil ve açık alanları iyileştirmede hangi kalite ölçütlerine odaklanılacağını ve bundan sonraki peyzaj tasarımları için önceliklendirilen bu ölçütlere yönelik değerlendirme imkanı sağlamasına katkıda bulunacaktır. Böylece sahip olunan bir bilgi alışverişi ile diğer şehirlerde de stratejik mekânsal planlama yaklaşımı olarak park kalite ölçütlerini referans olarak kabul eden sürdürülebilir ve kullanıcı odaklı peyzaj tasarım ve yönetimi için etkili bir kılavuzu sunmaya çalışmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Akten, S. (2025). POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION OF THE NEW CITY PARK USING MULTICRITERIA DECISION-MAKING METHODS. Turkish Journal of Forest Science, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 371–392. https://doi.org/10.32328/turkjforsci.1752337

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (62)

  1. Akad, S. & Çubukcu, E. (2006). Kentsel açık alanlarda kullanım sonrası değerlendirme: İzmir sahil bantları örneği üzerine ampirik bir araştırma. Planlama, 3, 105-115.
  2. 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 Greenning, 25, 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.006.
  3. Akten, M. (2013) Possibility to employ AHP as a multi-criteria decision making method in landscape planning initiatives. In Advances in Landscape Architecture; IntechOpen: London, UK.
  4. Akten, M. & Sunar, C. (2022) Tarihi çevrelerin kentsel mekan kalitesi üzerine etkisi: Gaziantep Bey Mahallesi örneği. Turkish Journal of Forest Science, 6(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/ 10.32328/turkjforsci.976701
  5. Akten, S., & Yücedağ, C. (2022). Isparta Çünür Mahallesi park ve konut bahçelerinin peyzaj tasarımı açısından incelenmesi. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(1), 51-64. https://doi.org/10.17474/artvinofd.1058787
  6. Alp, M.A. (2025). Kullanım sonrası değerlendirme: Turnasuyu Kordon Park’ta (Ordu/Gülyalı) kullanıcı deneyimleri ve iyileştirme önerileri. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(1), 104-114. https://doi.org/10.32328/turkjforsci.976701
  7. Atabek, E. (2002). Kamusal mekanlarda kalite: Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Kampüsü'nde kullanıcı görüşlerine dayalı kalite değerlendirilmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye.
  8. Bahriny, F., & Bell, S. (2021). Traditional versus modern? Perceptions and preferences of urban park users in Iran. Sustainability, 13(4), 2036. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042036.
  9. Baljon, L. (1992). Designing parks: An examination of contemporary approaches to design in landscape architecture, based on a comparative design analysis of entries for the Concours International: Parc de la Villette, Paris, 1982-83. Wageningen University and Research. Wageningen, The Netherlands.
  10. Başalma, D.E., Uslu, A. & Şahin Körmeçli, P. (2019). Kent parkı kalite göstergelerinin değerlendirilmesi kapsamında bir deneme: Ankara 100. Yıl Birlik Parkı örneği. Uluslararası Peyzaj Mimarlığı Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 08-13.
  11. Bayram, B. (2007). Kamusal mekan kalitesinin yükseltilmesinde yöntemler ve kamusal sanatın rolü. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye.
  12. Beyli, K.N. & Yeşil, M. (2019). Mahalle parkları özelinde kalite kriterleri ile kullanım potansiyeli arasındaki ilişkinin irdelenmesi. Ordu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(3), 485-497.
  13. Chen, Y., Liu, X., Gao, W., Wang, R.Y., Li, Y., & Tu, W. (2018). Emerging social media data on measuring urban park use and their their relationship with surrounding areas. A case study of Shenzhen. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 31,130-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.02.005
  14. Coldwell, D.F., & Evans, K.L. (2018). Visits to urban green-space and the countryside associate with different components of mental well-being and are better predictors than perceived or actual local urbanisation intensity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 175, 114-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.02.007
  15. Conway, H. (2000.) Parks and people the social functions. In Woudstra, J., Fieldhouse, K. (Eds.) The regeneration of public parks. (196 pp.), Taylor & Francis, London.
  16. Dade, M.C., Mitchell, M.G.E., Brown, G., & Rhodes, J.R. (2020). The effects of urban greenspace characteristics and socio-demographics vary among cultural ecosystem services. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 49, 126641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126641.
  17. Emür, S. & Onsekiz, D. (2007). Kentsel yaşam kalitesi bileşenleri arasında açık ve yeşil alanların önemi: Kayseri/Kocasinan İlçesi park alanları analizi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22, 367-396.
  18. Ersoy, Y. (2021). Supplier selection in food industry using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. In Bayar Y. (Ed.). Handbook of research on institutional, economic and social impacts of globalization and liberalization. IGI Global Publishing, (pp. 657-670), USA. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998- 4459-4.ch036
  19. 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(4), 177-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.11.007.
  20. Fischler, R. (2000). Planning for social betterment: from standart of living to quality of life, urban planning in a changing World. The Twentieth-Century Experience, (183 pp.), London.
  21. Gai, S.J., Fu, J.M., Rong, X., & Dai, L.L. (2022). Users’ views on cultural ecosystem services of urban parks: An importance-performance analysis of a case in Beijing, China. Anthropocene, 37(1), 100323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2022.100323.
  22. Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings: Using public spaces. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Island Press, (211 pp.), London.
  23. Godbey, G., Graefe, A., & James, S.W. (1992). The benefits of local recreation and parkservices: A nationwide study of the perceptions of the American public. Washington D.C. National Recreation and Park Association, USA.
  24. Grazuleviciene, R., Dedele, A., Danileviciute, A., Vencloviene, J., Grazulevicius, T., Andrusaityte, S., Uzdanaviciute, I. & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2014). The influence of proximity to city parks on blood pressure in early pregnancy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(3), 2958-2972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph110302958
  25. 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 Greeing, 18, 198-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.005
  26. He, D., Miao, J., Lu, Y., Song, Y., Chen, L., & Liu, Y. (2022). Urban greenery mitigates the negative effect of urban density on older adults’ life satisfaction: Evidence from Shanghai, China. Cities, 124, 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103607
  27. Herzele, V.A., & Wiedemann, T. (2023). A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63, 109-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00192-5
  28. Huai, S.Y., & Voorde, T.V.D. (2022). Which environmental features contribute to positive and negative perceptions of urban parks? A cross-cultural comparison using online reviews and natural language processing methods. Landscape and Urban Planning, 218, 104307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104307.
  29. Huang, C., Yang, J., Lu, H., Huang, H., & Yu, L. (2017). Green spaces as an indicator of urban health: Evaluating its changes in 28 mega-cities. Remote Sensing, 9(12), 1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9121266
  30. Jaung, W., Carrasco, L.R., Shaikh, S.F.E.A., Tan, P.Y., Richards, D.R. (2020). Temperature and air pollution reductions by urban green spaces are highly valued in a tropical city-state. Urban Forestry Urban Greenning, 55(1), 126827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ufug.2020.126827.
  31. Jiang, Q. Z., Wang, G. X., Ling, X. Y., & Liu, N. (2022). Research on the perception of cultural ecosystem services in urban parks via analyses of online comment data. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 10(5), 32-51. https://doi.org/10.15302/J-LAF-1-020072
  32. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  33. Karakaya, N., & Taşlı, T.C. (2019). Yaşam kalitesinin arttırılmasında kent parklarının önemi: Eskişehir örneği. Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(20), 1259-1283, https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.590962.
  34. Kılbaş, E.P., & Cevahir, F. (2023). Bilimsel araştırmalarda örneklem seçimi ve güç analizi. Journal of Biotechnology and Strategic Health Research, 7(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.34084/bshr.1217279
  35. Kua, E.H., & Sia, A. (2017). Green environment and mental health in the city. Mental Health and Illness Worldwide, 445-464. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0752-1_2-1
  36. Liu, Q., Wang, X., Liu, J., Zhang, G., An, C., Liu, Y., Fan, X., Hu, Y., & Zhang, H. (2021). The relationship between the restorative perception of the environment and the physiological and psychological effects of different types of forests on university students. International Journal Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(22), 2224. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212224.
  37. Madden, K. (2001). How to turn a place around, a handbook for creating successful public spaces. In Schwartez, A. (Ed.) Project for Public Spaces. New York.
  38. McCormack, G.R., Rock, M., Toohey, A.M., & Hignell, D. (2010). Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Health & Place, 16(4), 712-726. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.03.003
  39. Orban, E., Sutcliffe, R., Dragano, N., Joeckel, K.H., & Moebus, S. (2017). Residential surrounding greenness, self-rated health and interrelations with aspects of neighborhood environment and social relations. Journal of Urban Health Bulletin, 94(2), 158-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524–016–0112–3.
  40. Öztürk, S.M. & Temel, S.C. (2019). Kent parklarda kalite kriterlerinin değerlendirilmesi: Karabük Kordon Park örneği. Kent Kültürü ve Yönetimi Hakemli Elektronik Dergisi, 12(4), 752-764. https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.616808
  41. Polat, A.T. (2012). Kent parklarında görsel kalite ve doğallık derecesi arasındaki ilişkilerin belirlenmesi. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 2(3), 85-92.
  42. Prakash, C., & Barua, MK. (2015). Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for prioritizing the solutions of reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy environment. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 37(3), 599-615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.03.001
  43. Project for Public Spaces (PPS), (2000). How to turn a place around: A handbook for creating successful public spaces. Project for Public Spaces, Inc., ISBN: 0-70624- 0- 1, (121 pp.), New York.
  44. Saaty, T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. (1th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
  45. Saaty, T.L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. (6th ed.). Rws Publications, Pittsburgh.
  46. Schroeder, H.W. (1991). Environment, behavior and design research on urban forests. In Advances in environment, behavior, and design. Plenium, (pp. 87-117), New York.
  47. Shi, W.W., Mahdzar, S.S.S., & Li, W.C. (2023). Park inclusive design index as a systematic evaluation framework to improve inclusive urban park uses: the case of Hangzhou urban parks. Applied Sciences, 13(23),12954. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132312954
  48. Talay, İ., Kaya, F., & Belkayalı, N. (2010). Sosyo-ekonomik yapının rekreasyonel eğilim ve talepler üzerine etkisi: Bartın kenti örneği. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 8(2), 147-156.
  49. Ter, Ü. (2011). Quality criteria of urban parks: The case of Alaaddin Hill (Konya-Turkey), African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(23), 5367-5376. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR11.016
  50. Thompson, C.W, Aspinall, P., Roe, J., Robertson, L., & Miller, D. (2016). Mitigating stress and supporting health in deprived urban communities: The importance of green space and the social environment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(4), 440. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13040440
  51. Topçu, G.Z., Bayır, K., Cavıldak, Z.E., Başeğmez, M., & Aydın, C.C. (2023). Yeşil alan uygunluk analizinin CBS tabanlı AHP ve TOPSİS yöntemleriyle değerlendirilmesi. Geomatik, 8(3), 235-249. https://doi.org/10.29128/geomatik.1171069
  52. TUİK, Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (2024). https://www.tuik.gov.tr/ Accessed 25.07. 2025
  53. Ulrich, R.S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects. Environment and Behavior, 13(5), 523–556.
  54. Wang, D., Brown, G., Liu, Y., & Mateo-Babiano, I. (2015). A comparison of perceived and geographic access to predict urban park use. Cities, 42(A), 85-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.10.003
  55. Wang, S., Duan, W., & Zheng, X. (2023). Post-occupancy evaluation of brownfield reuse based on sustainable development: The case of Beijing Shougang Park. Buildings, 13(9), 2275. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092275
  56. 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”. Landscepe and Urban Planning, 125, 234-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017
  57. Woollett, K., & Maguire, E.A. (2010). The effect of navigational expertise on wayfinding in new environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 565-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.003
  58. Yücel, G.F., & Yıldızcı, A.C. (2006). Kent parkları ile ilgili kalite kriterlerinin oluşturulması. İTÜ Dergisi /a, 5(2), 222-232.
  59. Zeisel, J. (1995). İnquiry by design. Tools for environment-behavior research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  60. Zhai, Y.J. (2016). Landscape architecture planning and design strategy based on environmental psychology-natural environment preference theory as an example. In Proceedings of the 2016 annual meeting of the Chinese Society of Landscape Architecture. (15-17 April 2016), Changsha, China.
  61. Zhu, Z., Li, J., & Chen, Z. (2023). Green space equity: Spatial distribution of urban green spaces and correlation with urbanization in Xiamen, China. Environment Development and Sustainability, 25 (1), 423-443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02061-0
  62. Zhou, X.C., Cen, Q.Y., & Qiu, H.F. (2023). Effects of urban waterfront park landscape elements on visual behavior and public preference: evidence from eyetracking experiments. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 82(2),127889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ufug.2023.127889