Research Article


DOI :10.26650/JECS2020-808723   IUP :10.26650/JECS2020-808723    Full Text (PDF)

Assessments of Conceptual in Quality of Urban Life Measurements and Dimensional Recommendations

Yıldız AkpolatFüsun Kökalan ÇımrınAykut Çalışkan

In pursuit of the ideal of well-being for the benefit of the individual, the concept of quality of life, which is physically meaningful through cities, attributes value to social indicators and the satisfaction of these indicators. The theoretical perspective presented to the literature is not in a standard structure due to the different spatial that process the cultural fabric. This situation necessarily led us to search for a model in Turkey. Representing our area offered a standard structure due to the different spatial functioning of the cultural fabric of the validity of the theoretical perspective we are compelled to search for models in Turkey has led to private. In this study, in which the causal-comparative quantitative research method was used, the indicators that were taken as the basis for measuring the quality of life of cities by Turkish Statistical Institute TSI in 2015 were reconsidered with the secondary data analysis technique and were subjected to factor analysis in statistical terms. It has been understood that the factors in the field of significance gravity of urban life quality in the dimension determination processes are encapsulated by social needs, spatial situation, satisfaction with public services, socio-economic development, and life satisfaction. It is predicted that this study, in which the effort to continue its journey with a tool that measures the importance levels and satisfaction of the quality of life indicators, will contribute to the development of social sciences in our country.

DOI :10.26650/JECS2020-808723   IUP :10.26650/JECS2020-808723    Full Text (PDF)

Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesi Ölçümlerinde Kavramsal Değerlendirmeler ve Boyut Önerileri

Yıldız AkpolatFüsun Kökalan ÇımrınAykut Çalışkan

Bireyin faydasına dönük iyi olma idealine arayış olan ve fiziksel açıdan kentler üzerinden anlam bulan yaşam kalitesi sosyal göstergeler ve bu göstergelerin memnuniyeti üzerine değer atfetmektedir. Alan yazınına sunulan teorik perspektifin geçerliliğinin kültürel dokuyu işleyen mekânsal farklılıklarından dolayı standart bir yapıyı mecburen temsil edememesi bizleri Türkiye özelinde model arayışına yönlendirmiştir. Nedensel karşılaştırmalı nicel araştırma yönteminin kullanıldığı araştırmada 2015 yılında TÜİK tarafından kentlerin yaşam kalitelerinin ölçülmesinde esas alınan göstergeler ikincil veri analizi tekniğiyle yeniden ele alınmış ve istatistiki açıdan faktör analizine tabi tutulmuştur. Boyut belirleme süreçlerinde kentsel yaşam kalitesinin çekim alanında yer alan faktörlerin toplumsal ihtiyaçlar, mekânsal durum, kamu hizmetlerinden memnuniyet, sosyo-ekonomik kalkınma ve yaşam memnuniyeti olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Yaşam kalitesi göstergelerinin önem düzeyleri ve memnuniyeti ölçen bir ölçme aracıyla yola devam edebilme çabasının arandığı bu araştırma ülkemizde sosyal bilimlerin gelişimine de katkı sunacağı öngörülmektedir.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


It is possible to define the quality of urban life as the balance of supply and demand of the services needed by the individual living in the city and all conditions. Although this process is complex, it also refers to a series of indicators. In addition to the well-being of the citizens and the variety and quality of services, the standards of the urban spaces must also be considered. In this sense, it is possible to define quality of urban life it as a concept that deals with the measurable spatial, social and physical elements that form the framework of the concept of urban life quality and how city residents perceive these elements. At this point, the main factor discussed is which dimensions the concept of urban life quality includes, as there is no consensus on this issue in the current literature.

Although there is no single agreed model for measuring urban life quality in the literature, it can be said that the most common and accepted approach used in this issue are the as listed above indicators. Indeed, it is seen that urban life quality studies first emerged within the social indicators movement in the 1960s. The social indicator paradigm roughly entails concise, comprehensive and balanced judgments about the state of fundamental aspects of society. According to the current literature approach, social indicators are divided into two. The first of these refers to the objective features of society, that is, to the objective elements that characterize the living conditions in a settlement. In the subjective approach in the second group, an attempt is made to develop a perspective based on the data obtained mostly from the questionnaire technique. People’s perceptions, behaviors, and perspectives of objective conditions are taken into account. We have recently witnessed the addition of a third element to these two dominant approaches in the literature. According to this model, which we can consider to be a combination model, it is necessary to use both objective and subjective indicators together to understand the urban life quality.

When we look at the research on urban life quality, we see that the first studies were conducted within the social indicators movement in the 1960s and centered mostly on objective indicators. An example of this approach is a study by Liu (1976) in 1970 in which more than 244 metropolitan areas in the USA were assessed measured using five general categories; economic, political, environmental, health, education, and social categories were discussed in the research.

One of the first important studies on subjective indicators was conducted by Campbell et al. (1976). This research, which is structured on satisfaction with life and happiness indicators, is based on the relationship between quality of life and social change. Campbell et al. emphasized that expectations, emotions, desires, and value judgments should be followed to assess understand the quality of life. In addition, according to Marans (1975, 2007) and Connerly (1988), one of the most important names in the urban life quality field, individuals’ views are influenced by their past life experiences as well as their perception and evaluation of the characteristics of the living environment.

The theoretical perspective presented to the literature is not in a standard structure due to the different spatial that process the cultural fabric. This situation necessarily led us to search for a model in Turkey. Being able to represent our area offered a standard structure due to the different spatial functioning of the cultural fabric of the validity of the theoretical perspective we are compelled to Turkey has been seeking to direct the specific model and size drink. The fact that the concept of urban life quality becomes measurable is built on the goal of determining the parameters and establishing the importance levels of the connected parameters. This study used a causal-comparative quantitative research method and the indicators that were taken as the basis for measuring the quality of life of cities by Turkish Statistical Institute in 2015 were reconsidered with secondary data analysis technique and subjected to factor analysis in terms of statistics.

It has been understood that the factors in the field of gravity of urban life quality in the dimension determination processes are social needs, the spatial situation, satisfaction with public services, socio-economic development, and life satisfaction. It is considered that determining the importance levels of social indicators, which constitute the centrality of the research where the consideration reflections of countries at the local level, including international organizations, are important, and including them in the studies will contribute to the achievement of accurate results. It has been observed that the variables included in the model among the dimensions of quality of life and in the field of attraction of urban life quality are mainly composed of the variable structure of needs and focus of satisfaction. It is thought that the results of the study will contribute to the dimension determination and data collection processes to be used in urban life quality measurement studies.


PDF View

References

  • Akpınar, O., & Pektaş, E. K. (2019). Yavaş şehirler (Cıttaslow) ve kentsel yaşam kalitesi üzerindeki etkileri: Seferihisar halkının algısı üzerine bir araştırma. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 31-46. google scholar
  • Andelman, Fried, I., & Neulfeld, M. (2001). Quality of life self-assessment as a function of lateralization of lesion in candidates for epilepsy surgery. Clinical Research, 42 (4), 549-555. google scholar
  • Andrews, F.M., & Whitney, S.B. (1976). Social ındicators of well-being. Americans Perceptions of Life Quality. New York: Plenum Press. google scholar
  • Başaran, İ., & Çiftçi, S. (2011). “Yönetimler arası işbirliğinin kentsel yaşam kalitesinin geliştirilmesindeki önemi”, Afyon Kocatepe İİBF Dergisi, 13 (2), 251-275. google scholar
  • Beritan, C., & Emecen, Y., (2020). Kentsel yaşam kalitesi üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir inceleme: Samsun On Dokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Güzel Sanatlar Fakültesi Kampüsü örneği, Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(75), 14951506. google scholar
  • Biaga, B., & Ladu M. G., & Meleddu M. (2018). Urban quality of life and capabilities: an experimental study, Ecological Economics, 150, 137-152. google scholar
  • Campbell, A., & Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life. Russell Sage Foundation, New York. google scholar
  • Das, D. (2008). Urban quality of life: A case study of Guwahati. Social Indicators Research, 88(2), 297-310. google scholar
  • El Din, H. S., Shalaby, A., Farouh, H. E., & Elariane, S. A. (2013). Principles of Urban quality of Life for a Neighborhood. Hbrc Journal, 9(1), 86-92. google scholar
  • European Unıon (2013). Quality of life in European cities-Report. “Retrieved from” https://ec.europa.eu/ commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_366_en.pdf. google scholar
  • Görün M., & Kara M., (2010). Kentsel dönüşüm ve sosyal girişimcilik bağlamında Türkiye’de kentsel yaşam kalitesinin artırılması, Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi 8 (2), 139-164. google scholar
  • Hagerty, M.R., & Cummins, R.A., & Ferriss, A. L., & Land, K.; Michalos, A.C., & Peterson, M., & Sharpe, A., & Sirgy, M., & Vogel, J. (2001). Quality of life indexes for national policy: review and agenda for research, Social Indicators Research, 55 (1) 1-96. google scholar
  • Hagerty, R. Mıchael, (1999). Unifying livability and comparison theory: cross-national time-series analysis of life-satisfaction, Social Indicators Research 47, 343-356. google scholar
  • İnan Ö., & Özdemir S. İ. (2019). Kentsel yaşam kalitesi ölçüm yöntemlerinin geliştirilmesi, International Journal of Economics, Politics, Humanities&Social Sciences 2 (3), 184-198. google scholar
  • Liu, B. C. (1976). Quality of life indicators in U.S. metropolitan areas. Praeger, New York. google scholar
  • Lotfi, S., & Solaimani, K. (2009). An assessment of urban quality of life by using analytic hierarchy process approach (case study: Comparative study of quality of life in the north of iran). Journal of Social Sciences, 5(2), 123-133. Retrieved from www.scopus.com google scholar
  • Marans R., & Stimson R. (2011) An overview of quality of urban life, Investigating quality of urban life-theory, Methods and Empirical Research, edit: Robert W. Marans&Robert J. Stimson, Social Indicators Series, London:Springer. google scholar
  • Marans, R. W. & Rodgers, W. (1975). Towards an understanding of community satisfaction. İ A. Hawley & V. Rock (Eds.). Metropoliten America in contemporary perspective, 299 - 352. New York: Halsted Press. google scholar
  • Marans, R., (2007). Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesinin Ölçülmesi, Mimarlık dergisi, Dosya. Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesi (335) Mayıs-Hazıran. google scholar
  • McCrea, R., & Stimson, R., & Marans, R. W. (2011). The evolution of integrative approaches to the analysis of quality of urban life. In Investigating quality of urban life (pp. 77-104). Springer, Dordrecht. google scholar
  • McCrea, R., & Shyy, T. K., & Stimson, R. (2006). What is the strength of the link between objective and subjective indicators of urban quality of life? Applied research in quality of life, 1(1), 79-96. google scholar
  • Oktay, D., & Marans, R. W. (2010). Overall quality of urban life and neighborhood satisfaction: A household survey in the walled city of famagusta. Open house international. google scholar
  • On Birinci Kalkınma Planı Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesi Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu (2018). Ankara: Kalkınma Bakanlığı, “Erişim Adresi:”https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wpcontent/uploads/2020/04/KentselYasamKalitesiOzelIhtisasKomisyonuRaporu.pdf. google scholar
  • Pacione, Michael (2003). Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing- a social geographical perspective, Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, 19-30. google scholar
  • Psatha E., & Deffner A., & Psycharis Y., (2011). Defining the quality of urban life: which factors should be considere? European Regional Science Association 51st European Congress, Barcelona. “Erişim Adresi:” www.ac.at/ersa/ ersaconfs/ersall/e11083a Final00785.pdf. google scholar
  • Rogerson R.J. (1999). Quality of life and city competitiveness. Urban Studies, 36 (5- 6), 969-985. google scholar
  • Sarı, V. İ., & Kındap A., (2018). Türkiye’de kentsel yaşam kalitesi göstergelerinin analizi. Sayıştay Dergisi, Sayı:108, 39-68. google scholar
  • Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being, The Quality of Life (30-53), Oxford: Clarendon Press. google scholar
  • Stimson, Robert., & Marans, Robert W. (2011). Objective Measurement of Quality of Life Using Secondary Data Analysis, Investigating Ouality of Urban Life-Theory, Methods and Empirical Research, edit: Robert W. Marans&Robert J. Stimson, social Indicators Series, London:Springer. google scholar
  • Tekeli, İ. (2010). Gündelik yaşam, yaşam kalitesi ve yerellik yazıları, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları. google scholar
  • tuik.gov.tr, (2020). Konularına Göre İstatistikler, “Erişim Adresi:” https://data.tuik.gov.tr/tr/main-category-sub-categories-sub-components2/,Erişim Tarihi: 30.09.2020. google scholar
  • Türkoğlu Dülger H., & Bölen F., & Baran, Korça P., & Marans, R. (2007). İstanbul’da konut alanlarında yaşam kalitesinin ölçülmesi, Mimarlık Dergisi. Dosya: Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesi. google scholar
  • Türkoğlu D. H., & Bölen F., & Baran K. P., & Terzi F. (2011). Measuring quality of urban life in İstanbul. Investigating Ouality of Urban Life-Theory, Methods and Empirical Research, edit: Robert W. Marans&Robert J. Stimson, social Indicators Series, London:Springer. google scholar
  • Türksever A., & Atalık G., 2001. Possibilities and limitations for the measurement of the quality of life in urban areas, Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 163-187, February. google scholar
  • Türksever, A. (2000). Türkiye’de büyük şehir alanlarında yaşam kalitesinin değerlendirilmesine yönelik bir yöntem denemesi (Doctoral dissertation, İTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü). google scholar
  • Van Kamp, I., & Leidelmeijer, K., & Marsman, G., & Hollander, A. de (2003). Urban environmental quality and human-wellbeing towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study, Landscape and Urban Planning, S. 65, ss. 5-18 google scholar
  • Veenhoven R., (2000). The four qualities of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1 (1), 1-39. google scholar
  • WHOQOL-Measuring Quality of Life The World Health Organization Quality Of Life Instruments (The Whoqol-100 And The Whoqol-Bref) Programme On Mental Health (1997). “Erişim Adresi:” http://www.who. int/mental_health/media/68.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 09.09.2020. google scholar
  • Wish, N.B. (1986). Are we really measuring the quality of life? well-being has subjective dimensions, as well as objective ones. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 45 (1), 93-99. google scholar
  • Xie, S. (2019). Quality matters: housing and the mental health of rural migrants in urban China. Housing Studies, 34(9), 1422-1444. google scholar
  • Yanıklar, C. (2010). Tüketim kültürü, kapitalizm ve insan ihtiyaçları arasındaki ilişki üzerine bir tartışma. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi/Journal of Social Sciences, 34(1). google scholar
  • Yavuzçehre Savaş, P., & Torlak S. E. (2006). Kentsel yaşam kalitesi ve belediyeler: denizli karşıyaka mahallesi örneği, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitisü Dergisi, Yıl:2, Sayı: 4, ss: 184-207. google scholar
  • Zamanifard, H., & Alizadeh, T., & Bosman, C., & Coiacetto, E. (2019). Measuring experiential qualities of urban public spaces: users’ perspective. Journal of Urban Design, 24(3), 340-364. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Akpolat, Y., Kökalan Çımrın, F., & Çalışkan, A. (2019). Assessments of Conceptual in Quality of Urban Life Measurements and Dimensional Recommendations. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society, 0(0), -. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-808723


AMA

Akpolat Y, Kökalan Çımrın F, Çalışkan A. Assessments of Conceptual in Quality of Urban Life Measurements and Dimensional Recommendations. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society. 2019;0(0):-. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-808723


ABNT

Akpolat, Y.; Kökalan Çımrın, F.; Çalışkan, A. Assessments of Conceptual in Quality of Urban Life Measurements and Dimensional Recommendations. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 0, p. -, 2019.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Akpolat, Yıldız, and Füsun Kökalan Çımrın and Aykut Çalışkan. 2019. “Assessments of Conceptual in Quality of Urban Life Measurements and Dimensional Recommendations.” Journal of Economy, Culture and Society 0, no. 0: -. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-808723


Chicago: Humanities Style

Akpolat, Yıldız, and Füsun Kökalan Çımrın and Aykut Çalışkan. Assessments of Conceptual in Quality of Urban Life Measurements and Dimensional Recommendations.” Journal of Economy, Culture and Society 0, no. 0 (Jun. 2021): -. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-808723


Harvard: Australian Style

Akpolat, Y & Kökalan Çımrın, F & Çalışkan, A 2019, 'Assessments of Conceptual in Quality of Urban Life Measurements and Dimensional Recommendations', Journal of Economy, Culture and Society, vol. 0, no. 0, pp. -, viewed 25 Jun. 2021, https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-808723


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Akpolat, Y. and Kökalan Çımrın, F. and Çalışkan, A. (2019) ‘Assessments of Conceptual in Quality of Urban Life Measurements and Dimensional Recommendations’, Journal of Economy, Culture and Society, 0(0), pp. -. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-808723 (25 Jun. 2021).


MLA

Akpolat, Yıldız, and Füsun Kökalan Çımrın and Aykut Çalışkan. Assessments of Conceptual in Quality of Urban Life Measurements and Dimensional Recommendations.” Journal of Economy, Culture and Society, vol. 0, no. 0, 2019, pp. -. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-808723


Vancouver

Akpolat Y, Kökalan Çımrın F, Çalışkan A. Assessments of Conceptual in Quality of Urban Life Measurements and Dimensional Recommendations. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society [Internet]. 25 Jun. 2021 [cited 25 Jun. 2021];0(0):-. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-808723 doi: 10.26650/JECS2020-808723


ISNAD

Akpolat, Yıldız - Kökalan Çımrın, Füsun - Çalışkan, Aykut. Assessments of Conceptual in Quality of Urban Life Measurements and Dimensional Recommendations”. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society 0/0 (Jun. 2021): -. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-808723



TIMELINE


Submitted10.10.2020
Accepted04.04.2021
Published Online19.05.2021

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.