Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The evaluation of the urban parks in Konya province in terms of quality, sufficiency, maintenance, and growth rate

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

Abstract

Nowadays, the understanding of physically, socially, and visually sufficient and high-standard outdoor arrangements has begun to appear. The most important ones among this kind of spaces are urban parks which contain many recreational opportunities and facilities together. The aim of this study is to identify the current situation of the urban parks in Konya province and the facilities in the parks in terms of quality, sufficiency, growth rate, and maintenance. The second purpose of the study is to obtain information about the park users’ evaluations of the park officers within the context of park visits and information sources of the users related to the parks. Within the context of the study, the questionnaires were conducted by face-to-face interviews with 494 park users. The urban parks in Konya province were evaluated by the park users in terms of quality, sufficiency, maintenance, and growth rate criteria. While 44.1% of the users evaluated the parks as “good” in terms of quality, 4.7% of the users stated that the quality of the parks was “bad.” Considering the sufficiency of the urban parks, the findings represent that majority of the users identified the parks as sufficient and 27.9% of them identified insufficient. 44.1% of the users stated that the parks were well maintained and 10.1% considered the parks were badly maintained. The growth rate of the urban parks in Konya was described as “fast” by 48.6% of the users and as “normal” by 29.8% of the users.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altınçekiç, H., & ve Erdönmez, İ. M. Ö. (2001). The landscape evaluation in terms of user in Ulus Park. Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University (JFFIU), 51(2), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous, (2016). http://konya.com.tr/park-alanlari/: [2016].

  • Atmiş, E., Günşen, B. H., Yücedağ, C., & ve Lise, W. (2012). Status, use and management of urban forests in Turkey. SEEFOR (South-east European forestry), 3(2), 69–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celik, D., Açıksöz, S., (2016). Visual landscape analysis in planning process: the case of Amasra. Oxidation communications 39, No 4-II, 3562–3578 (2016) Overall ecology and sustainable development.

  • Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 129–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. A., McKenzie, T. L., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D., & ve Lurie, N. (2007). Contribution of public parks to physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 97(3), 509–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cranz, G. (1991). Four models of municipal park design in the United States, denatured visions: landscape and culture in the twentieth century. New York: Museum of Modern Art.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demir, Z., Gültekin, P. G., Özdede, S., Kaya, S. (2016). Assessment of the recreational area potential of Duzce Asar stream. Oxidation communications 39, No 4-II, 3549–3561 (2016) Overall ecology and sustainable development.

  • Dunnett, N., ve Hitchmough, J., (2007). The dynamic landscape: design, ecology and management of naturalistic urban planting, Taylor & Francis.

  • Dunnett, N., Swanwick, C., ve Woolley, H., (2002). Improving urban parks, play areas and green spaces, London: Department for transport, local government and the regions.

  • Evenson, K. R., Wen, F., Golinelli, D., Rodríguez, D. A., ve Cohen, D. A., (2012). Measurement properties of a park use questionnaire, Environment and behavior, 0013916512436421.

  • Eymirli, S., (1994). The determination of open green areas of Erzurum City and investigation of urban open green Area PRINCIPLES, Master Thesis, Adana: Çukurova University Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Landscape Architecture, Cukurova University Printing House, 91.

  • Gobster, P. H. (2002). Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse clientele, Leisure Sciences, 24 (2). ISBN, 143-159, 0149–0400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iamtrakul, P., Teknomo, K. ve Hokao, K., (2005). Public park valuation using travel cost method, 1249–1264.

  • Littman, A. J., White, E., Kristal, A. R., Patterson, R. E., Satia-Abouta, J., & ve Potter, J. D. (2004). Assessment of a one-page questionnaire on long-term recreational physical activity. Epidemiology, 15(1), 105–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muderrisoglu, H., Oğuz, D., & ve Şensoy, N. (2010). An evaluation of green areas from the point of user satisfaction in Ankara, Turkey: gap analyses method. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(10), 1036–1042.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, D. J., Crane, D. E., & ve Stevens, J. C. (2006). Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 4(3), 115–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oğuz, D., (1998). A research on the usage of Ankara urban parks as a concept of urban park, PhD thesis Ankara University Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Landscape Architecture.

  • Oku, H., & ve Fukamachi, K. (2006). The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75(1), 34–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Önder, S., ve Polat, A. T., (2012). The importance of urban open-green spaces in urban life. The seminar on formation and maintenance of urban landscape areas. Konya Turkey: 73–96.

  • Onsekiz, D., & ve Emür, S. H. (2008). Determination of user preferences and evaluation criteria in city parks. Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 24, 69–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostermann, F. O. (2010). Digital representation of park use and visual analysis of visitor activities. Computers Environment and Urban Systems, 34(6), 452–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, S., Nielsen, K., & ve Goodenough, R. (1994). Managing urban parks: user perspectives and local leisure needs in the 1990s. Service Industries Journal, 14(2), 216–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauleit, S., (2003). Urban street tree plantings: identifying the key requirements, 43–50.

  • Polat, A. T. (2011). The visual qualities of the urban area and plants. Plant, The magazine of landscaping and ornamental plants, 1(3), 20–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polat, A. T., ve Güngör, S., (2013). The relations between park’s users demographic characteristics and park visits of Konya urban parks. Landscape Architecture 5th Congress-2013 “Transforming Landscape” Adana Türkiye: TMMOB The Chamber of Landscape Architects: 882–993.

  • Polat, A. T., & ve Önder, S. (2004). The concept of urban park and a urban park example for Konya City. Selcuk University Facuty of Agriculture Journal, 18(34).

  • Seeland, K., Moser, K., Scheuthle, H., & ve Kaiser, F. G. (2002). Public acceptance of restrictions imposed on recreational activities in the peri-urban Nature Reserve Sihlwald, Switzerland. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 1(1), 49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzun, S., (2005). User satisfaction in rural recreation areas: the example of Bolu Gölcük Forest-recreation area. Bolu: Abant İzzet Baysal University, Master Thesis, Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Landscape Architecture.

  • Walker, C., (2004). The public value of urban parks, Urban Institute.

  • Woolley, H. (2003). Urban open spaces. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yaslica, E., 1991, The user participation in public spaces and the user-oriented a research for environmental design in Konak Sokak. Public Space Design and Urban Furnishings Symposium May 15–16, Mimar Sinan University, Facuty of Architecture. Istanbul, Turkey.

  • Yaşlıca, E., & ve Tanrıvermiş, E. (1999). The place of landscape design in the urban design process. Urban design: a designs complete symposium (pp. 34–35). İstanbul: Mimar Sinan University, Facuty of Architecture, City and Regional Planning Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yazicioglu, Y., & ve Erdogan, S. (2004). SPSS application of scientific research methods (pp. 49–50). Ankara: DetayPublishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yorulmaz, A., (2006). Determine user profiles and expectations of Harikalar Diyari Park, Master Thesis, Ankara University Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Landscape Architecture, Ankara, 3–24.

  • Yücel, G. F., & ve Yıldızcı, A. C. (2006). Setting quality criteria in city parks. itü journal/a architecture, planning, design, 5(2–2), 222–232.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Landscape Architecture, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey

    Sertaç Güngör & Ahmet Tuğrul Polat

Authors
  1. Sertaç Güngör
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmet Tuğrul Polat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sertaç Güngör.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Güngör, S., Polat, A.T. The evaluation of the urban parks in Konya province in terms of quality, sufficiency, maintenance, and growth rate. Environ Monit Assess 189, 172 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-5875-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-5875-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation