Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 164, Issue 1–4, pp 593–603 | Cite as

Spatial analysis and facility characteristics of outdoor recreational areas in Istanbul

  • Fatih Kara
  • Ali Demirci


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.


Outdoor recreation Parks Facility Istanbul 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aksoy, Y. (2001). An assessment of green areas of Istanbul. PhD Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Graduate School of Applied Sciences.Google Scholar
  2. Argyle, M. (1996). The social psychology of leisure. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caldwell, L. (2005). Leisure and health: Why is leisure therapeutic? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 33(1), 7–26. doi: 10.1080/03069880412331335939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  8. Cummins, R. (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos. Social Indicators Research, 38, 303–328. doi: 10.1007/BF00292050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Department of Recreation and Parks (2008). County Park Listing, Baltimore County, Maryland. Accessed 10 September 2008.
  11. DNR (Indiana Department of Natural Resourcess) (2006). 2006–2010 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Chapter 3: Outdoor recreation supply. Accessed 10 September 2008.
  12. Driver, B. L. (1996). Benefits-driven management of natural areas. Natural Areas Journal, 16, 94–99.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Edginton, C., Jordan, D., DeGraaf, D., & Edginton, S. (2002). Leisure and life satisfaction: Foundational perspectives (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Erkip, F. (1998). The distribution of urban public services: The case of parks and recreational services in Ankara. Cities, 14(6), 353–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Francis, W. (1999). Proposed “Natural Heritage Act” Quick Fact Sheet. Calgary/Banff Chapter, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Accessed 8 September 2008.
  17. Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (1998). Positive moods derived from leisure and their relationship to happiness and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IMM (2000). Statistics for Istanbul, demography. Istanbul: Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McIntyre, N., & Pigram, J. J. (1992). Recreation specialization reexamined: The case of vehicle-based campers. Leisure Research, 14, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Murphy, J., Niepoth, E., Jamieson, L., & William, J. (1991). Leisure systems: Critical concepts and applications. Champaign: Sagamore.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Parks Department (Owasso City) (2007). Owasso parks master plan, park facilities. Parks Department of Owasso City. Accessed 10 September 2008.
  29. 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
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pomfret, G. (2006). Mountaineering adventure tourists: A conceptual framework for research. Tourism Management, 27, 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. PRCS Department (City of Colorado Springs) (2004). Parks and trails homepage, park facilities. = 2723. Accessed 8 September 2008.
  33. Roberts, K. (1996). Young people, schools, sport and government policy. Sport Education and Society, 1(1), 47–57. doi: 10.1080/1357332960010103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Torkildsen, G. (1999). Leisure and recreation management. London: Spon.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. TÜİK (2008). Adrese dayalı nüfus kayıt sistemi (ADNKS), 2007 Nüfus Sayımı Sonuçları. Accessed 29 July 2008.
  41. Tyrvainen, L. (2001). Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 62, 75–92. doi: 10.1006/jema.2001.0421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. UN (2008). World urbanization prospects: The 2007 revision population database. Accessed 28 July 2008.
  43. UN-ECE/FAO (2000). Forest resources assessment, Chapter VI: Socio-economic functions of forests and other wooded land (p. 343). Accessed 28 July 2008.
  44. 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
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyFatih UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations