Spatial analysis and facility characteristics of outdoor recreational areas in Istanbul
- 158 Downloads
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.
KeywordsOutdoor recreation Parks Facility Istanbul
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Aksoy, Y. (2001). An assessment of green areas of Istanbul. PhD Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Graduate School of Applied Sciences.Google Scholar
- Argyle, M. (1996). The social psychology of leisure. New York: Penguin Books.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.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- IMM (2000). Statistics for Istanbul, demography. Istanbul: Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Murphy, J., Niepoth, E., Jamieson, L., & William, J. (1991). Leisure systems: Critical concepts and applications. Champaign: Sagamore.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).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.
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- Torkildsen, G. (1999). Leisure and recreation management. London: Spon.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.
- 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