Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spatial analysis and facility characteristics of outdoor recreational areas in Istanbul

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article reports the results of a study that explored whether outdoor recreational areas are sufficient in Istanbul in terms of their surface area and facility characteristics. All the municipalities in 32 subprovinces of Istanbul were sent a survey in 2007 and asked to prepare a list of their outdoor recreational areas including their names, addresses, size, and facilities. All the data collected from the municipalities were used to create a GIS-based inventory by using GIS and remote sensing. As the study revealed, the outdoor recreational areas in Istanbul are far behind meeting the recreational needs of the residents in terms of area per person and facility characteristics. There are 2,470 areas which were dedicated to outdoor recreational activities in Istanbul. Total surface area of all these outdoor recreational areas is 19,2 sq kilometers; this means 1.52 m2 recreational area per person in the city. This value is very low when compared to that of many cities in Europe and USA. As the study also revealed, the majority of outdoor recreational areas in Istanbul are poor in facility. Majority of the existing outdoor recreational areas are small and do not provide the public with many opportunities to engage in different outdoor activities. A more sustainable and efficient recreational plan is needed in Istanbul to meet the various recreational needs of its residents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aksoy, Y. (2001). An assessment of green areas of Istanbul. PhD Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Graduate School of Applied Sciences.

  • Argyle, M. (1996). The social psychology of leisure. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaton, A. A., & Funk, D. C. (2008). An evaluation of theoretical frameworks for studying physically active leisure. Leisure Sciences, 30(1), 53–70. doi:10.1080/01490400701756410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, L. (2005). Leisure and health: Why is leisure therapeutic? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 33(1), 7–26. doi:10.1080/03069880412331335939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coalter, F. (1996). Trends in sports participation. Position paper prepared for the sports council. In Institute for leisure and amenity management annual conference, Birmingham, 1996.

  • Craike, M., & Coleman, D. (2005). Buffering effects of leisure self-determination on the mental health of older adults. Leisure/Loisir, 29(2), 301–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos. Social Indicators Research, 38, 303–328. doi:10.1007/BF00292050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curry, N., & Ravenscroft, N. (2001). Countryside recreation provision in England: Exploring a demand-led approach. Land Use Policy, 18, 281–291. doi:10.1016/S0264-8377(01)00022-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Recreation and Parks (2008). County Park Listing, Baltimore County, Maryland. http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/Agencies/recreation/countyparks/cntyparkslist.html. Accessed 10 September 2008.

  • DNR (Indiana Department of Natural Resourcess) (2006). 2006–2010 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Chapter 3: Outdoor recreation supply. http://www.in.gov/dnr/files/chap3.pdf. Accessed 10 September 2008.

  • Driver, B. L. (1996). Benefits-driven management of natural areas. Natural Areas Journal, 16, 94–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, B., Tinsley, H., & Manfredo, M. (1991). The paragraphs about leisure and recreation experience preference scales: Results from two inventories designed to assess the breadth of the perceived psychological benefits of leisure. In G. L. Peterson (Ed.), Benefits of Leisure. State College: Venture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edginton, C., Jordan, D., DeGraaf, D., & Edginton, S. (2002). Leisure and life satisfaction: Foundational perspectives (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erkip, F. (1998). The distribution of urban public services: The case of parks and recreational services in Ankara. Cities, 14(6), 353–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, W. (1999). Proposed “Natural Heritage Act” Quick Fact Sheet. Calgary/Banff Chapter, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. http://raysweb.net/sp2000/cpaws/index.html. Accessed 8 September 2008.

  • Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (1998). Positive moods derived from leisure and their relationship to happiness and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 523–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IMM (2000). Statistics for Istanbul, demography. Istanbul: Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, L., & Lee, P. S. N. (2005). Multiple determinants of life quality: The roles of internet activities, use of new media, social support, and leisure activities. Telematics and Informatics, 22(3), 161–180. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2004.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, K., & Auld, C. (2002). The role of leisure in determining quality of life: Issues of content and measurement. Social Indicators Research, 57, 43–71. doi:10.1023/A:1013879518210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, N., & Pigram, J. J. (1992). Recreation specialization reexamined: The case of vehicle-based campers. Leisure Research, 14, 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melin, R., Fugl-Meyer, K. S., & Fugl-Meyer, A. R. (2003). Life satisfaction in 18- to 64-year-old Swedes: In relation to education, employment situation, health and physical activity. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 35(2), 84–90. doi:10.1080/16501970306119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merom, D., Phongsavan, P., Chey, T., & Bauman, A. (2006). Long-term changes in leisure time walking, moderate and vigorous exercise: Were they influenced by the national physical activity guidelines? Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 9, 199–208. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2006.03.021.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J., Niepoth, E., Jamieson, L., & William, J. (1991). Leisure systems: Critical concepts and applications. Champaign: Sagamore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neal, J., Sirgy, J., & Uysal, M. (1999). The role of satisfaction with leisure travel/ tourism services and experience in satisfaction with leisure life and overall life. Journal of Business Research, 44, 153–163. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00197-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuvonen, M., Sievänen, T., Tönnes, S., & Koskela, T. (2007). Access to green areas and the frequency of visits—A case study in Helsinki. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4), 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. (1992). The quality dimension. Evaluating quality of service and quality of life in human services. British Journal of Social Work, 22, 437–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parks Department (Owasso City) (2007). Owasso parks master plan, park facilities. Parks Department of Owasso City. http://www.cityofowasso.com/parks_dept/master_plan.html. Accessed 10 September 2008.

  • Paronen, O. (2005). Liikkumiseen kannustava ympa risto rakentuu valinnoilla (Choices of environment to support participation in physical exercise). Liikunta & Tiede 1–2/2005, 4–8 (in Finnish).

  • Pierskalla, C. D., Lee, M. E., Stein, T. V., Anderson, D. H., & Nickerson, R. (2004). Understanding relationships among recreation opportunities: A meta-analysis of nine studies’. Leisure Sciences, 26(2), 163–180. doi:10.1080/01490400490432082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomfret, G. (2006). Mountaineering adventure tourists: A conceptual framework for research. Tourism Management, 27, 113–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PRCS Department (City of Colorado Springs) (2004). Parks and trails homepage, park facilities. http://www.springsgov.com/Page.asp?NavID = 2723. Accessed 8 September 2008.

  • Roberts, K. (1996). Young people, schools, sport and government policy. Sport Education and Society, 1(1), 47–57. doi:10.1080/1357332960010103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnohr, P., Kristensen, T. S., Prescott, E., & Scharling, H. (2005). Stress and life dissatisfaction are inversely associated with jogging and other types of physical activity in leisure time: The Copenhagen City Heart Study. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 15(2), 107–112. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2004.00394.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C., & Shaw, S. (2005). If the dishes don’t get done today, they’ll get done tomorrow: A breast cancer experience as a catalyst for changes to women’s leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(2), 195–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugiyama, T., & Thompson, C. W. (2008). Associations between characteristics of neighbourhood open space and older people’s walking. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 7, 41–51. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2007.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinsley, H. E. A., Tinsley, D. J., & Croskeys, C. E. (2002). Park usage, social milieu, and psychosocial benefits of park use reported by older urban park users from four ethnic groups. Leisure Sciences, 24, 199–218. doi:10.1080/01490400252900158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torkildsen, G. (1999). Leisure and recreation management. London: Spon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trenberth, L., & Dewe, P. (2002). The importance of leisure as a means of coping with work related stress: An exploratory study. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 15(1), 59–72. doi:10.1080/09515070110103999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TÜİK (2008). Adrese dayalı nüfus kayıt sistemi (ADNKS), 2007 Nüfus Sayımı Sonuçları. http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/adnksdagitimapp/adnks.zu. Accessed 29 July 2008.

  • Tyrvainen, L. (2001). Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 62, 75–92. doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0421.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • UN (2008). World urbanization prospects: The 2007 revision population database. http://esa.un.org/unup/p2k0data.asp. Accessed 28 July 2008.

  • UN-ECE/FAO (2000). Forest resources assessment, Chapter VI: Socio-economic functions of forests and other wooded land (p. 343). http://www.unece.org/trade/timber/fra/screen/chp6_tot.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2008.

  • Wankel, L. M., & Berger, B. G. (1990). The psychological and social benefits of sport and physical activity. Journal of Leisure Research, 22(2), 167–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, S., Zengin, M., & Yildiz, N. D. (2007). Determination of user profile at city parks: A sample from Turkey. Building and Environment, 42, 2325–2332. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, Fatih University, Buyukcekmece, Istanbul, 34500, Turkey

    Fatih Kara & Ali Demirci

Authors
  1. Fatih Kara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Demirci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatih Kara.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kara, F., Demirci, A. Spatial analysis and facility characteristics of outdoor recreational areas in Istanbul. Environ Monit Assess 164, 593–603 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-009-0915-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-009-0915-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation