SavedAdd your journal

Journals / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 1

The role of urban waterfront parks on quality of life in İstanbul

Handan TÜRKOĞLU
Serengül SEÇMEN
Pages
53–66
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)

As a result, the reasons that shape the preferences for urban waterfront parks will be discussed and various suggestions will be pre-sented to increase the use of waterfront parks in order to improve the quality of life in Istanbul.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Waterfronts or other natural resources contribute in a positive way to the qual-ity of urban life.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A face-to-face interview was con-ducted within the scope of the data set consisting of 1635 residential units selected by a random sampling method.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, the reasons that shape the preferences for urban waterfront parks will be discussed and various suggestions will be pre-sented to increase the use of waterfront parks in order to improve the quality of life in Istanbul.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Waterfronts or other natural resources contribute in a positive way to the qual-ity of urban life. Parks located on the urban waterfronts can be defined as being both valuable and unique as they combine the natural settings of water source and green spaces to meet the physical and social needs of urban inhabitants. The aim of this research to emphasize the importance of natural areas for the life quality by focusing on the user preferences of the parks on urban waterfronts in Istanbul. The evaluation of the urban waterfront parks in the Istanbul Metropolitan Area is presented by empirical data on quality of life. A face-to-face interview was con-ducted within the scope of the data set consisting of 1635 residential units selected by a random sampling method. As a result, the reasons that shape the preferences for urban waterfront parks will be discussed and various suggestions will be pre-sented to increase the use of waterfront parks in order to improve the quality of life in Istanbul.

🔖

Cite This Article

TÜRKOĞLU, H., SEÇMEN, S. (2019). The role of urban waterfront parks on quality of life in İstanbul. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 1, 53–66. https://ajindex.com/articles/389412

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Ak, M. K., Eroğlu, E., Özdede, S., & Kaya, S. (2014). Comparing Urban parks between Turkey and Netherlands: A case study of seğmenler park-frankendael Park and Göksu park-bijlmerpark. Selected Paper of 2nd Global Conference on Environmental Studies (CENVISU-2014), 09- 10 April 2014, Quality Hotel Rouge et Noir Conference Center, Rome, Italy. Barton, H., Tsourou, C., (2000). Healthy City Planning. World Health Organization, Kopenhagen. Bilgin, İ., (2012). Why and which world cities? Wanings, Flourishings Harbour Cities: Amsterdam, Barcelona, Hamburg. Harbour Cities, Metropolis and Architecture Series No: 3, İstanbul Bilgi University, 7-27.
  2. Breen, A., and Rigby, D., (1996). The new waterfront: A worldwide urban success story. London: Thames and Hudson. Bruttomesso, R., (1993). d’Acqua, Venedig Centro Internazionale Città., 1991. Waterfronts: A new frontier for cities on water. Eds. Rinio Bruttomesso. na. Venice: Grafiche Veneziane. Carr, S., et al., (1992). Public space (Environment and behavior). Nowy Jork, Cambridge. Chiesura, A., (2003). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning 68 (2004) 129–138
  3. Elsevier Coley, R. L., Kuo, F.E., & Sullivan, W.C. (1997). Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior, 29, 468-492.
  4. Craig-Smith, S. J., Fagence, M., (eds) (1995). Recreation and tourism as a catalyst for urban waterfront redevelopment: An international survey. California: Greenwood Publishing Group. Czrnki, L., Zühlke, W., (1995). Erholung und Regionalplanung. Hannover: Raumforschung und Raum. Falk, N., (2002). Turning the tide: British experience in regenerating urban docklands, England and Wales, URBED Archive. Frei, A., (2004). Charleston Waterfront Park. Remaking The Urban Waterfront, Urban Land Institute, Washington, 142-147.
  5. Gastil, R., (2002). Beyond the edge: New York’s new waterfront. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
  6. Güvenç, M., et al., (2012). Azman sanayi kentinden kentsel bölgeye. Istanbul’un Yüzyılı Sergisi. İstanbul:
  7. İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi.
  8. Hoyle, B., Stewart, B., Pinder, D., (1992). European port cities in transition. London: Belhaven Press.
  9. Kaplan, R., (1983). The role of nature in the urban context. In: I.Altman and J.F.Wohlwill (eds.). Behavior and The Natural Environment. New York: Plenim Press.
  10. Koramaz, E., Turkoglu, H., (2014). İstanbul’da Kentsel Yeşil Alan Kullanımı ve Kentsel Yeşil Alanlardan Memnuniyet. 24(1) 26-34 İsta