SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Economy Culture and Society / 2021 / Sayı: 64

Assessments of Conceptual in Quality of Urban Life Measurements and Dimensional Recommendations

Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesi Ölçümlerinde Kavramsal Değerlendirmeler ve Boyut Önerileri

Yıldız AKPOLAT
Füsun KÖKALAN ÇIMRIN
Aykut ÇALIŞKAN
Pages
313–335
Publication Date
2021-12-29
DOI
—
🏛️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)

It is predicted that this study, in which the effort to continue its journey with a tool that measures the importance levels and satisfaction of the quality of life indicators, will contribute to the development of social sciences in our country.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In pursuit of the ideal of well-being for the benefit of the individual, the concept of quality of life, which is physically meaningful through cities, attributes value to social indicators and the satisfaction of these indicators.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, in which the causal-comparative quantitative research method was used, the indicators that were taken as the basis for measuring the quality of life of cities by Turkish Statistical Institute TSI in 2015 were reconsidered with the secondary data analysis technique and were subjected to factor analysis in statistical terms.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is predicted that this study, in which the effort to continue its journey with a tool that measures the importance levels and satisfaction of the quality of life indicators, will contribute to the development of social sciences in our country.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Kent · Yaşam Kalitesi · Modelleme

Abstract

In pursuit of the ideal of well-being for the benefit of the individual, the concept of quality of life, which is physically meaningful through cities, attributes value to social indicators and the satisfaction of these indicators. The theoretical perspective presented to the literature is not in a standard structure due to the different spatial that process the cultural fabric. This situation necessarily led us to search for a model in Turkey. Representing our area offered a standard structure due to the different spatial functioning of the cultural fabric of the validity of the theoretical perspective we are compelled to search for models in Turkey has led to private. In this study, in which the causal-comparative quantitative research method was used, the indicators that were taken as the basis for measuring the quality of life of cities by Turkish Statistical Institute TSI in 2015 were reconsidered with the secondary data analysis technique and were subjected to factor analysis in statistical terms. It has been understood that the factors in the field of significance gravity of urban life quality in the dimension determination processes are encapsulated by social needs, spatial situation, satisfaction with public services, socio-economic development, and life satisfaction. It is predicted that this study, in which the effort to continue its journey with a tool that measures the importance levels and satisfaction of the quality of life indicators, will contribute to the development of social sciences in our country.

Özet

Bireyin faydasına dönük iyi olma idealine arayış olan ve fiziksel açıdan kentler üzerinden anlam bulan yaşam kalitesi sosyal göstergeler ve bu göstergelerin memnuniyeti üzerine değer atfetmektedir. Alan yazınına sunulan teorik perspektifin geçerliliğinin kültürel dokuyu işleyen mekânsal farklılıklarından dolayı standart bir yapıyı mecburen temsil edememesi bizleri Türkiye özelinde model arayışına yönlendirmiştir. Nedensel karşılaştırmalı nicel araştırma yönteminin kullanıldığı araştırmada 2015 yılında TÜİK tarafından kentlerin yaşam kalitelerinin ölçülmesinde esas alınan göstergeler ikincil veri analizi tekniğiyle yeniden ele alınmış ve istatistiki açıdan faktör analizine tabi tutulmuştur. Boyut belirleme süreçlerinde kentsel yaşam kalitesinin çekim alanında yer alan faktörlerin toplumsal ihtiyaçlar, mekânsal durum, kamu hizmetlerinden memnuniyet, sosyo-ekonomik kalkınma ve yaşam memnuniyeti olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Yaşam kalitesi göstergelerinin önem düzeyleri ve memnuniyeti ölçen bir ölçme aracıyla yola devam edebilme çabasının arandığı bu araştırma ülkemizde sosyal bilimlerin gelişimine de katkı sunacağı öngörülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKPOLAT, Y., ÇIMRIN, F. K., ÇALIŞKAN, A. (2021). Assessments of Conceptual in Quality of Urban Life Measurements and Dimensional Recommendations. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, Sayı: 64, 313–335. https://ajindex.com/articles/383309

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Akpınar, O., & Pektaş, E. K. (2019). Yavaş şehirler (Cıttaslow) ve kentsel yaşam kalitesi üzerindeki etkileri: Seferihisar halkının algısı üzerine bir araştırma. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 31-46. google scholar Andelman, Fried, I., & Neulfeld, M. (2001). Quality of life self-assessment as a function of lateralization of lesion in candidates for epilepsy surgery. Clinical Research, 42 (4), 549-555. google scholar Andrews, F.M., & Whitney, S.B. (1976). Social ındicators of well-being. Americans Perceptions of Life Quality. New York: Plenum Press. google scholar Başaran, İ., & Çiftçi, S. (2011). “Yönetimler arası işbirliğinin kentsel yaşam kalitesinin geliştirilmesindeki önemi”, Afyon Kocatepe İİBF Dergisi, 13 (2), 251-275. google scholar Beritan, C., & Emecen, Y., (2020). Kentsel yaşam kalitesi üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir inceleme: Samsun On Dokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Güzel Sanatlar Fakültesi Kampüsü örneği, Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(75), 14951506. google scholar Biaga, B., & Ladu M. G., & Meleddu M. (2018). Urban quality of life and capabilities: an experimental study, Ecological Economics, 150, 137-152. google scholar Campbell, A., & Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life. Russell Sage Foundation, New York. google scholar Das, D. (2008). Urban quality of life: A case study of Guwahati. Social Indicators Research, 88(2), 297-310. google scholar El Din, H. S., Shalaby, A., Farouh, H. E., & Elariane, S. A. (2013). Principles of Urban quality of Life for a Neighborhood. Hbrc Journal, 9(1), 86-92. google scholar European Unıon (2013). Quality of life in European cities-Report. “Retrieved from” https://ec.europa.eu/ commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_366_en.pdf. google scholar Görün M., & Kara M., (2010). Kentsel dönüşüm ve sosyal girişimcilik bağlamında Türkiye’de kentsel yaşam kalitesinin artırılması, Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi 8 (2), 139-164. google scholar Hagerty, M.R., & Cummins, R.A., & Ferriss, A. L., & Land, K.; Michalos, A.C., & Peterson, M., & Sharpe, A., & Sirgy, M., & Vogel, J. (2001). Quality of life indexes for national policy: review and agenda for research, Social Indicators Research, 55 (1) 1-96. google scholar Hagerty, R. Mıchael, (1999). Unifying livability and comparison theory: cross-national time-series analysis of life-satisfaction, Social Indicators Research 47, 343-356. google scholar İnan Ö., & Özdemir S. İ. (2019). Kentsel yaşam kalites