An Assesment of the Healthy City Indicators’ Effects on Urban Security
Mehtap Çakmak Barsbay, Aytuğ AltınCities can be defined as the areas where the need for health and security is at greater level due to rapid changes and transformation. The expansion of cities has led to multi-component urban problems. Thus, any emerging problems in urban settings should be handled with a holistic approach, focusing on economic, social, cultural, educational, justice, and health issues. There are many available tools such as the urban life index, and healthy cities index, which can be used to evaluate the characteristics of city life. The main purpose of these indexes is to determine the quality of life in cities in terms of the above-mentioned factors. When the indicators in these indexes are examined, it seems that the focus has shifted towards capacity utilization in health and security services. On the contrary, the focus should be on improving health status, and developing security levels in the urban context. In this respect, it is important to determine the policies that have possible positive impacts and implications on health and security. Increasingly, practitioners should seek new guidance on the activities that can support the creation of a better life in cities. This paper attempts to examine the healthy city indicators in the urban security context. For this purpose, quantitative research design is employed to illuminate the relationship between health and security outcomes in Turkey. After weighting and normalizing the variables statistically, the cumulative health and security scores of the cities are calculated. Using the proposed index (which reflects both apparent and obscure linkages between health and security in cities), may contribute to agenda setting and promoting practical outcomes.
Sağlıklı Kent Göstergelerinin Kent Güvenliğine Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi
Mehtap Çakmak Barsbay, Aytuğ AltınKentler, değişimin ve dönüşümün hızlı gerçekleştiği alanlar olarak sağlık ve güvenlik ihtiyacının arttığı mekanlardır. Kentlerin genişlemesi çok bileşenli sorunların artmasına neden olmuştur. Bu nedenle, kent güvenliğine yönelik ortaya çıkan sorunlar ekonomik, sosyal, kültürel, eğitim, adalet ve sağlık yönünden bütüncül yaklaşımla ele alınmalıdır. Nitekim kentlere yönelik bazı göstergelerin belirlenmesi girişimleri bulunmaktadır. İllerde yaşam endeksi ve kent sağlık göstergeleri bunlardan birkaçıdır. Bu girişimlerin temel amacının kentteki yaşamın belirlenen boyutlar açısından değerlendirilmesi olduğu görülmektedir. Endeks göstergeleri incelendiğinde odak noktasının sağlık ve güvenlik hizmeti sunumunda kapasite kullanımına doğru kaymış olduğu söylenebilir. Aksine odak noktasında sağlık ve güvenlik düzeyinin olumlu yönde iyileştirilmesi yer almalıdır. Bu açıdan doğrudan sonuçlarla ve ortaya çıkardığı etkilerle ilişkili politikaların belirlenmesi ve uygulayıcılarca bu amaca hizmet edecek faaliyetlerin yürütülmesi önem taşımaktadır. Kente yönelik sağlık ve güvenlik politikalarına bu açıdan yaklaşılmalıdır. Bu çalışmada temel olarak sağlıklı kent göstergelerinin, kentsel güvenlik bağlamında değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla Türkiye’de sağlık ve güvenlik hizmetlerinin yansıması olarak illerde sağlık ve güvenlik sonuçları arasında ilişki olup olmadığı incelenmiş, kullanılan değişkenler istatistiksel analiz ile ağırlıklandırılmıştır. Gösterge değerleri istatistiki olarak normalize edilerek illerin sağlık ve güvenlik puanları oluşturulmuştur. Doğrudan sağlık ve güvenlik ilişkisini ortaya koyan bu endeksin kullanımı pratik sonuçların geliştirilmesine ve ilgili politikaların belirlenmesine yönelik gündem oluşmasına katkıda bulunabilecektir.
Cities are places where large numbers of people live and work due to better living conditions and improved employment opportunities. According to the European Urban Charter, citizens of European towns have a right to a secure and safe town, free, as far as possible, from crime, delinquency, and aggression. Different aspects of urban development are based on making policies for dealing with urban insecurity, crime prevention, and drug abuse. Moreover, health in towns is another prominent factor in urban development.
The research question is how we can recognize a healthy and safe city and whether there is a relationship between the two. We included road traffic deaths and injuries, sexual crimes, drug-related crimes, robbery, number of victims injured by firearms, knives or cutting tools, mortality rate due to respiratory system diseases, particulate matter 10 value, prevalence of tobacco use among adults, prevalence of alcohol use among adults, annual health expenditure per capita, life expectancy at birth in years, and suicide rate (Table 1) in our study. In the data analysis, we used Microsoft Excel and the SPSS 21.0 package program. After applying the minimum-maximum normalization and equal weighting method, we added the variables to the index in terms of their positive or negative contribution. We grouped similar cities based on the K-means cluster analysis.
The cities with the highest health scores were Isparta, Edirne, Aydın, Antalya, and Mersin. There was a 0.29 point difference between the city with the highest score and the city with the lowest score. The cities with the lowest health scores were Kırıkkale, Van, Şanlıurfa, Kilis, and Bingöl, respectively. The cities with the highest safe city score were Kocaeli, Muğla, Denizli, Bolu, and Ankara. There was a 0.28 points difference between the city with the highest score and the city with the lowest score. The cities with the lowest points were Şanlıurfa, Hakkâri, Batman, Mardin, and Muş, respectively.
There was a positive moderate linear relationship between healthy and safe city dimensions between healthy and safe city scores (r = 0.38; p = 0.01). The optimal number of clusters was determined as 4 by considering Silhouette value (Silhouette value = 0.55). There were 27 cities in the first, 19 in the second, 18 in the third, and 17 in the fourth cluster. As a result of the homogeneity tests of Levene, Scheffe, and Bonferroni, the variances of healthy and safe city variables were homogeneous (Levene = 1.25 p> 0.05; Levene = 0.63 p> 0, 05). In terms of safe city indicators, there were statistically significant differences between the four clusters in binary comparisons (p <0.05). In this regard, it is advisable for public policy makers to consider trends in health and safe city indicators in their decision making process. For this reason, the use of the componentbased model for healthy and safe cities introduced in the study can be a starting point in terms of preventing urban differences. This study shows that we can measure the health and safety levels of cities based on the use of certain numerical indicators. The use of the healthy and safe city index, which reveals the relationship between health and safety in cities, can contribute to the development of practical results and the agenda for determining relevant policies.
