Loading...

New Approaches to Spatial Planning and Design

Planning, Design, Applications

by Murat Özyavuz (Volume editor)
Edited Collection 640 Pages

Summary

One of the main objectives of planning and design is the reflection of the works to the space. Therefore, the starting point of this book is to reveal the research conducted by different professions in the field of spatial planning and design. For this purpose, original researches on direct application and land were included. Planning and design studies need co-operation between professions in order to fulfill this philosophy. These activities are effective means of fulfilling the philosophy of sustainability. Planning and design is a tool to tell the story of a community, and how it’s past, present and future work together for a sustainable tomorrow. The design process in which the most appropriate spatial compositions are revealed by shaping the areas in the direction of planning decisions, develops in the continuation of the planning process. This book is for landscape architects and other planning and design professions. Theoretical foundations, theories, methods, and applications will be essential parts of this reference book. In addition, this book addresses several very different subjects of study; landscape management, biodiversity, landscape restoration, landscape design, urban design, urban planning and architectural design related to theory, practice and the results will be covered.

Table Of Contents

  • Cover
  • Title Page
  • Copyright Page
  • About the author
  • About the book
  • Citability of the eBook
  • Contents
  • List of Contributors
  • 1 Perception of Quality of Life on the Axis of Tourism-Focused Local Development, Example of Amasya
  • 2 Investigation of Water Process Analysis Method
  • 3 A New Solution Proposal for Pedestrian–Vehicle Traffic: Uzun Street Sample in Turkey
  • 4 Smart Cities and Their Criticism from the Perspective of Landscape Architecture
  • 5 Site Management in the Protection of Archeological Landscapes: A Review on the Archeological Site Management Plans of World Heritage Sites Located in Turkey
  • 6 Planning Experience of Hermann Jansen in Gaziantep City during 1930s
  • 7 Evaluation of Erciyes University Eastern Campus Social Center Project from Lefebvrian Perspective
  • 8 Recreational Area Quality in Residential Environment
  • 9 Visual Landscape Assessment in Güzelcehisar Village-Bartin (Western Black Sea Region of Turkey)
  • 10 Cybernetics’ Twin of Urban Environments: Urban Informatics
  • 11 Designing Out Damp: Exploring Basic Design Principles to Control Excessive Moisture in Buildings
  • 12 Urban Greenway Systems within the Context of Sustainable Landscapes
  • 13 A Sustainable and Integrated Framework for Local Governments: Smart City
  • 14 Sustainability of the Urban Landscape: An Investigation of the Effects of Ecology on Urban Parks within the Scope of Integrated Landscape Approach
  • 15 Ecological Landscape Planning and Management: Approaches and Innovations
  • 16 Integrating Ecosystem Services into Spatial Planning
  • 17 New Approaches in Design within the Context of Architectural Production Practice of Local Governments: The Case of Luleburgaz Yildizlari Women’s Academy
  • 18 Reconstructing the Cultural Identity: Transformation of Architecture-Transformation of City during the Tanzimat Era
  • 19 Contemporary Approaches in Museum Space Design
  • 20 An Evaluation of Urban Texture Components in the Example of Şanliurfa Hasimiye Square with Regards to Urban Identity and Urban Aesthetics
  • 21 An Analysis of the Spatial Needs and Flexibility in Postgraduate Centers of Theology in the Framework of Kayseri Case
  • 22 Cemeteries in Uyghur Culture and the Importance of Cemeteries in Open-Green Area System
  • 23 Landscape Planning for Sustainable Groundwater Resources
  • 24 Transformation to Water-Sensitive Cities in the 21st Century: Sustainable Stormwater Management
  • 25 Theoretical Approaches on Aesthetics and Urban Aesthetics Concept
  • 26 Child-Friendly City Approaches
  • 27 Use of Digital Technologies in Landscape Architecture: 3D Printers
  • 28 Evaluation of Amasra’s Visual Landscape Quality in Terms of Natural, Historical, and Cultural Values
  • 29 The Concept of Refunctioning in Terms of “What,” “Why” and “How” Questions
  • 30 Interaction of Design Museums and Design Education as a Creativity Exposing Education Model: The Case of Britain
  • 31 Evaluation of the Concept of Green Infrastructure Systems, Planning and Management by Using Swot Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats)
  • 32 Cognitive Studies in Urban Design
  • 33 Construction of Memory through Architecture: Current Approaches
  • 34 The Effects of River on the Urban Development and Water Structures of Edirne
  • 35 Innovations in Campus Planning: The case of Karabuk University
  • 36 Determination of Visitor Expectations in the Scope of Sustainable Tourism: The Case of Konya/Sille
  • 37 Future Landscape Constructions: Green Infrastructures (GI)
  • 38 Functional Transformation: 2 Cities, 2 Buildings Bursa: Veysel Karani Sevgi Köyü (2003, 2018) Edirne: Trakya University – Prof. Dr. Ahmet Karadeniz Campus Technical Sciences Vocational School (2012, 2018)
  • 39 An Investigation of Indoor Air Quality in Old and New Campus Buildings: Harran University
  • 40 Determination of Visual Landscape Quality of Campus Areas: Tekirdağ Namik Kemal University Example
  • 41 Applying the Theory Challenge: Measuring the Environmental Quality in Turkey
  • 42 Investigating the Seismicity of Urban Areas Using Definite Parametres: City Center of Karabuk
  • 43 Use of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants
  • List of Figures
  • List of Tables

List of Contributors

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Funda K. Açıcı

Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Interior Architecture Department, Trabzon, Turkey

Dr. Kofi Agyekum

Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Department of Construction Technology and Management, Kumasi, Ghana

Res. Ass. Duygu Akyol

Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Forestry, Landscape Architecture Department, Trabzon, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sennur Akansel

Trakya University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Department of Building Science

Murat Akten

Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Süleyman Demirel University 32260 Isparta, Turkey (e-mail: muratakten@sdu.edu.tr)

Ayhan Akyol

Department of Forest Engineering, Faculty of Forestry, Isparta University of Applied Sciences 32260 Isparta, Turkey (e-mail: ayhanakyol35@gmail.com)

Sibel Akten

Department of Landscape and Ornamental Plants, Isparta University of Applied Sciences 32500 Eğirdir-Isparta, Turkey (e-mail: sakten@gmail.com)

Assist. Prof. Dr. Nurgül Arısoy

Selçuk University, Agricultural Faculty, Department of Landscape Architecture, Konya, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aslı Altanlar

Amasya University, Faculty of Architecture, Urban and Regional Planning Department, Amasya, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Egemen Aras

Bursa Technical University, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Department of Civil Engineering, Bursa, Turkey

Assist. Prof. Dr. Aylin Aras

Bursa Technical University, Faculty of Architecture and Design, Department of Architecture, Bursa, Turkey

Dr. Oğuz Ateş

İnönü University, Faculty of Fine Arts and Design, Landscape Architecture Department, Malatya, Turkey

Prof. Dr. Fatih Aydın

Karabuk University, Faculty of Letters, Department of Geography, Karabük, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Canan Cengiz and Res. Asst. Aybüke Özge Boz

Bartın University, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Landscape Architecture, Bartın, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Seda H. Bostancı

Namık Kemal University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Political Science and Public Administration Department, Tekirdağ, Turkey

←11 | 12→

Ezgi Ceyda Büyüktaşkın

Urban Planner, İzmir, Turkey

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ayça Yeşim Çağlayan

Istanbul University—Cerrahpaşa, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Landscape Architecture, Bahçeköy, Istanbul

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Suat Çabuk

Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University, Faculty of Fine Arts, Design and Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Tekirdağ, Turkey

Graduate Student Ayşe Gülan Çelebi

Inönü University, Faculty of Fine Arts and Design, Department of Landscape Architecture, Malatya, Türkiye

Asst. Prof. Dr. A. Esra Cengiz

Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Design, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey

Nadim Kamel Copty

Boğaziçi University, Institute of Environmental Sciences, 34342, Bebek, İstanbul, Turkey)

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Demet Demiroğlu

Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Kilis 7 Aralık University, Kilis, Turkey

Assist. Prof. Dr. Fulya Üstün Demirkaya

Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Trabzon, Turkey

Assist. Prof. Dr. Pınar Öztürk Demirtaş

İstanbul Okan University, Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture, Industrial Product Design Department, Istanbul, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ferhat Hacialibeyoğlu

Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, İzmir, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Deniz Dokgöz

Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, İzmir, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kemal Demir

Erciyes University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Kayseri, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Zühal Dilaver

Ankara University, Faculty of Agriculture, Landscape Architecture Department, Ankara, Turkey

Assist. Prof. Dr. Yasin Dönmez

Karabuk University, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Landscape Architecture, Karabük, Turkey

Assist. Prof. Dr. Tuba Rastgeldi Dogan

Harran University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Environmental Engineering, Şanlıurfa,Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Barış Ergen

Erciyes University, Faculty of Architecture, City and Regional Planning Department, Kayseri, Turkey

←12 |
 13→

Asst. Prof. Dr. Şehriban Eraslan

Süleyman Demirel University, Faculty of Architecture, Landscape Architecture Department, Isparta, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şebnem Ertaş

Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Interior Architecture Department, Trabzon, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ercan Gökyer

Bartın University, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Landscape Architecture, 74100, Bartın, Turkey, egokyer@bartin.edu.tr

Dr. Meltem Güneş

Namık Kemal University, Faculty of Fine Arts, Design and Architecture, Department of Landscape Architecture, Tekirdağ, Turkey

Azat Gül

İnönü University, Faculty of Fine Arts and Design, Landscape Architecture Department, Malatya, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Özge İslamoğlu

Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Interior Architecture, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Timur Kaprol

Namık Kemal University, Faculty of Fine Arts, Design and Architecture, Architecture Department, tkaprol@nku.edu.tr

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aybike Ayfer Karadağ

Düzce University, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Landscape Architecture, Düzce, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Dr. Ayşe Durukan Kopuz

Namık Kemal University, Faculty of Corlu Engineering, Civil Engineering Department, Corlu/Tekirdağ, Turkey

Prof. Dr. Aslı Korkut

Namık Kemal University, Faculty of Fine Arts, Design and Architecture, Landscape Architecture, 59030, Tekirdag, Turkey

Prof. Dr. Tuğba Kiper

Namık Kemal University, Faculty of Fine Arts, Design and Architecture, Landscape Architecture, 59030, Tekirdag, Turkey.

Ömer Lütfü Çorbaci

Recep Tayyıp Erdoğan University, Faculty of Fine Arts, Design and Architecture Department of Landscape Architecture, Rize, Turkey

Türker Oğuztürk

Recep Tayyıp Erdoğan University, Faculty of Fine Arts, Design and Architecture Department of Landscape Architecture, Rize, Turkey

Burcu Özdemir, Ph.D.

Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Urban and Regional Planning Department, Istanbul Technical University, İstanbul, Turkey

Lecturer Dr. Betül Atakan Öznam

Istanbul University—Cerrahpaşa, Vocational School of Forestry, Cultivation of Ornamental Plants Department, Bahçeköy, Istanbul.

Assist. Prof. Dr. Doruk Görkem Özkan

Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Forestry, Landscape Architecture Department, Trabzon, Turkey

←13 | 14→

Assist. Prof. Dr. Mahire Özçalık

Kahramanmaras University Faculty of Forestry Department of Landscape Architecture/Turkey

Melih Öztürk

Bartın University, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Landscape Architecture, 74100, Bartın, Turkey, melihozturk@bartin.edu.tr

Assist. Prof. Dr. Hülya Öztürk Tel

Harran University, Sanliurfa Technical Sciences Vocational School Department of Architectural Restoration, Sanliurfa, Turkey

Assist. Prof. Dr.Aylin Salıcı

Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Faculty of Architecture, Landscape Architecture Department, Antakya/Hatay, Turkey

Dr. Burcu Salgın

Erciyes University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Kayseri, Turkey

Res. Ass. Demet Ülkü Gülpınar Sekban

Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Forestry, Landscape Architecture Department, Trabzon, Turkey

Dr. Barbara Simons

Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Department of Construction Technology and Management, Kumasi, Ghana

Assist. Prof. Dr. Elif Sönmez

Altınbaş University, Faculty of Fine Arts and Design, Interior Architecture and Environmental Design Department, İstanbul, Turkey

Sümeyra Betül Tayfur

Namık Kemal University, Faculty of Fine Arts, Design and Architecture, Industrial Product Design, 59030, Tekirdag, Turkey.

Assist. Prof. Dr. Aysun Tuna

Inönü University, Faculty of Fine Arts and Design, Department of Landscape Architecture, Malatya, Türkiye

Department, Trabzon, Turkey

Prof. Dr. Bülent Cengiz and Oğuz Erdi Yakan

Bartın University, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Landscape Architecture, Bartın, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şengül Yalçınkaya

KaradenizTechnical University, Faculty of Architecture, Interior Architecture Department, Trabzon, Turkey

Prof. Dr. Rüya Yılmaz

Namık Kemal University, Faculty of Art Design and Architecture,Landscape Architecture Department, Tekirdağ, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Okan Yılmaz

Canakkale 18 Mart University, Faculty of Art, Design, and Architecture, Landscape Architecture Department, Çanakkale, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ülkü Duman Yüksel

Gazi University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Ankara, Turkey

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aslı Altanlar

1 Perception of Quality of Life on the Axis of Tourism-Focused Local Development, Example of Amasya

Abstract: In this chapter, we study the effects that tourism creates on quality of life, as being important for the sustainable improvement of tourism. For this reason, this chapter is focusing on defining the behaviors and perceptions of the local public in order to understand the effect tourism has on the quality of life and trying to understand the relation in between the perception of quality of life of the local public and support given for tourism-focused development policies. The empirical part of the chapter covers the historical neighborhoods in the central district of Amasya. The survey was conducted between November and December of 2017 and sampled 460 people living in Amasya. Principal components analysis is applied to statistically measure structural validity of the scale. Non-parametric test methods Spearman’s Correlation and Kruskal Wallis were used in the study. It was found that factors that determine how neighborhood inhabitants perceive the effects for tourism are, respectively, “effects of tourism oriented decisions,” “positive effects of tourism on economic environment,” “negative effects of tourism on physical environment,” and “negative effects of tourism on social environment.” It has also been determined that the dimensions determining the district residents’ general support of tourism are “motive of participation in tourism activities” and “motive of support of tourism activities.” The research data collected indicated that opinions regarding tourism development reflected differences according to the perceived impact and effects of tourism on the socio-cultural, physical, and tourism-oriented decisions. In the study, it has been found that the economical positive effect of the improvement of tourism is increasing the quality of life at the same level. In a similar manner, it has been found that the positive effects of tourism-oriented decisions on every individual are increasing the quality of life at the same level.

Keywords: Tourism development, Tourism support, Tourism perception, Impacts of tourism, Quality of life, Amasya

1 Introduction

As from the second half of 20th century, tourism has become one of the most rapidly developing and expanding sectors in the world economy and has often started to be used as a means of regional and national development as many other sectors [1]. While annual average increase in the world’s goods production remained at about 3% in the years 1991 and 2000, annual increase in tourism was realized as 6.6%. For this reason, in the solution of national and international economic problems that the economies of countries faced and in overcoming the bottlenecks by the end of 20th century, tourism had been deemed like a point of exit with its dynamic and economic characteristics [2]. For this reason, tourism is being ←15 | 16→deemed as one of the most significant sources of growth and improvement in our country too, as in many other countries [3].

The improvement of tourism in a region may have significant economical effects such as increasing the infrastructure and superstructure investments like construction, food and beverage, entertainment, transportation, etc., thus decreasing the problem of unemployment by creating employment opportunities, and most important of all eliminating the interregional economic imbalance by reviving the local economies [2, 4, 5]. But as tourism has contributions to country’s economy, it also has effects which may be deemed negative [4]. Dependency on foreign countries, decreased economic profitability, increased cost of living and inflation, benefit of a small part of the society from tourism may be listed among the main harmful effects of tourism on economic structure [6].

Tourism is not just an economic fact, but also an international act playing a significant role in the society and social structure, and with the social and cultural aspects of the society [4]. For this reason, the main point on which both the opponents of tourism and the ones who want to improve tourism focus is the fact that tourism is causing significant changes in the socio-cultural structure of the countries being subject to tourism [6]. The ones opposing the improvement of tourism are asserting that the common cultural structure of the society they live in such as traditions, customs, moral structure and life style will be negatively affected as the result of acts of tourism. These negative effects that tourism forms on social structure may be able to occur through changes in social life, family relations, moral attitudes, personal behavior, other systems, manners and customs, traditional ceremonies, life style, language and art, and in organization of the society [6,7,8].

Tourism is also able to make the natural, cultural, and historical values of a society a part of the commercial life [9]. Along with transformation of cultural characteristics to commercial meta, the interaction of cultures may sometimes be destructive. In this case, it is ending up with disappearance of local identity and authenticity [10]. Along with the improvement of tourism, environmental problems such as insufficiency of infrastructure, environmental and noise pollution, insufficiency of services, crowding, destruction of fertile lands, increasing of unearned income groups, destruction of natural and cultural environment, transformation of rural areas to an urban style are also being encountered [4].

In order to refer to a sustainable improvement in tourism, it is required to preserve the environment that the people interact or don’t interact with without deteriorating or changing it, to sustain the cultural integrity, ecological processes, biological diversity and the systems maintaining life; to plan all the resources as to meet the economic, social and aesthetical requirements of the people and tourists in the visited area; and to ensure the balance of protection and use in a manner as to enable the future generations to meet their same requirements [11]. Within this scope, maximizing the positive effects of tourism while minimizing its ecological, social, cultural and environmental negative effects should be the main objective [10]. And the main condition of the actualization of this objective will be ←16 | 17→ensuring effective contribution of the society, administrators of the society and all stakeholders in the tourism sector at the phase of development of tourism policies and strategies [12].

For this reason, there are many national and international studies done in the recent two decades for understanding the effects of tourism. It is being observed that these studies made at the intersection point of tourism and local community focus on how the economic, cultural, social and environmental effects of tourism are being perceived by the local public; in which direction the referred effects affect the support given by the local public for tourism; and how these effects sensed in the recent few years affect the lives of the public living in the area [13, 14, 15, 16]. Such researches are focusing on defining the behaviors and perceptions of the local community in order to understand the effect tourism has on quality of life, and trying to understand the relation in between the perception of quality of life of local public and support given for tourism-focused development policies [13].

According to the literature on the subject, the positive effects of tourism are increasing the quality of life of the local community, and causing the local community to support tourism and to develop a positive attitude. And the negative effects of tourism are causing the local community to be dissatisfied with the improvement of tourism in the region [17]. Moreover, the increasing socio-cultural and re-creative activities, and interaction with the visitors from different cultures, are contributing to the socio-cultural improvement of the individuals. There are also studies which allege that participation in the referred touristic activities has direct and indirect positive effects on satisfaction from life by ensuring happiness, healthier life, longer period of residence and high self-confidence, and thus on more satisfaction of life [15,17]. On the other hand, there are studies that reveal that the crowds, traffic volume, increase in crime rate, environmental pollution, high cost of living, corruption of traditional culture and changes in daily life styles that are created by tourism have negative effects on the quality of life of the local community [17].

Quality of life may be briefly expressed as a sense of content of an individual regarding her/his life, or satisfaction of an individual arising from her/his experiences [13]. Along with the presence of consensus on the subject that it is required for the definition of quality of life to cover many dimensions of life, which dimensions they should be is still a subject being discussed. Even if the definitions made regarding quality of life generally turn around “subjective perception of the individual regarding her/his life,” the quality of life is being examined in two aspects as being objective and subjective. While the objective indicators are income, education, profession, health, state of the lodging lived, etc., the satisfaction and content that the individual feels from these is the subjective indicator of quality of life [18]. Though there are various definitions and models on quality of life, it can be said that many researchers are like-minded regarding that quality of life has a multidimensional, interactive structure covering the lives of people and the environments they live in [13]. When the difference among studies of quality of life and attitude and perceived effect is considered, while the studies of attitude and perceived ←17 | 18→effect are mainly focusing on how the people perceive the effects of tourism on society and environment, the studies of quality of life are mainly dealing with how these effects affect the satisfaction of life of the individual and family including the society, neighborhood and personal conditions [13].

Up to this point it has been referred of positive and negative changes occurring at regions where their development is being tried to be based on tourism, and it has been dwelled on the issues required to be considered regarding a planning comprehension which doesn’t decrease the quality of environment and people. When the relevant literature is examined, it is being observed that support of local community and local enterprises is required for the improvement of sustainable tourism. Secondly, it is being clearly understood that it is required to reveal how the local community perceive economic, social, cultural and environmental effects as the tourism sector improves and as the number of tourists increase, and the positive and negative results that these effects create on quality of life. For this reason in this chapter it has been tried to determine (1) the effectiveness level of the referred effects of tourism in the formation of the support of local community for tourism, (2) the perception of the effects of tourism on the quality of life by local community, (3) whether there is a significant difference in between the perception of the effects of tourism by the participants as per their income states, periods of residence and ownership statuses and their support for tourism.

2 Material and Method

In this chapter, the province of Amasya, county of Merkez, which purports to be a focus point regarding culture tourism, and which faces a renewal and transformation process the interferences made, has been determined as the workspace. This study couldn’t be addressed in a manner as to cover the whole of province of Amasya, county of Merkez, due to constraints of time and cost. The empiric part of the study is covering the historical districts at the province of Amasya, county of Merkez. For this reason, the most significant constraint of the study is that it is inconvenient to generalize the obtained results for the whole community (including the ones living at the rural area).

Many houses which are reflecting the examples of Turkish civil architecture and which had not lost their traditional pattern, and districts of Hatuniye, Sofular, Nergis, Dere, Fethiye, Gökmedrese, Savadiye, Şamlar, Şehirüstü, Üçler at the county of Merkez drawing attention with their fountains, small squares, Islamic-Ottoman social complex and mosques, authentic natural beauties and traditional district culture constitute the subject of the study.

Number of dwellings of year 2017 of the ten districts, constituting the sample structure of the study, constitutes the universe of the research (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2017). Total number of sample has been determined as 384 for 3336 dwellings with a confidence interval of 95%, and sampling error of ±0.05. After determining the total sample number, the size of questionnaire to be conducted at each district had been determined in the direction of representation rates in the ←18 | 19→total. The questionnaires had been conducted in between November–December 2017 on weekdays and weekends by using the “simple random sampling method.” In this process, 460 dwellings in total had accepted to respond to the questionnaire.

The questionnaire form is consisting of four sections. In the first section, there are questions for determining the demographic characteristics of the participants. The second section is consisting of 34 propositions regarding the economic, social, cultural and environmental effects of tourism, and effects of tourism-oriented decisions. And in the third section of the questionnaire, a scale consisting of 17 propositions for measuring the satisfaction of participants from general living conditions (4 propositions), total effect of tourism (3 propositions) and support of tourism (10 propositions) had been used. The level of participation of participants in the propositions had been assessed on a 5-point Likert scale as (1) I definitely don’t agree, (2) I don’t agree, (3) I’m indecisive, (4) I do agree and (5) I definitely agree [1922].

Principal Component Analysis (PCA)—from among exploratory factor analysis—had been applied in order to determine the construct validity of the scale, and Cronbach’s alpha reliability test had been applied in order to determine the reliability. In order to understand whether the scale is suitable for factor analysis, Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity had been applied. Shapiro-Wilk test had been used in testing the normality of the scale’s scores; Sparman correlation test had been used for determining the direction and severity of the linear relationship among the scales; and Kruskal Wallis test had been used in the comparison of characteristics of the participants and the scales.

3 Findings

3.1 Descriptive Statistics of Household

About 9.8% of the participants were of ages 18–20, 21.3% of the participants were of ages 21–34, 29.3% were of ages 35–48 and 39.5% of them were over the age of 49; 53.9% of the participants were men, 67.8% of them were married, 21.1% of them were single and 10.2% of them were engaged. About 77.0% of the participants didn’t have an income generating job, 17% of them were retired and 6.1% of them were working on a salary basis. About 22.7% of the participants were primary school graduates, 18.8% of them were high school graduates, 3.6% of them were academy graduates and 2.5% of them were holding a license degree. About 3.2% of the participants were living at the district for less than one year, 17.2% of them were living at the district for 2–6 years, 16.8% of them were living at the district for 7–12 years, 9.7% of them were living at the district for 13–17 years and 62.8% of them were living at the district for 18 or more years. About 67.4% of the participants were homeowners and 96.5% of the participants were generating income from tourism.

About 42.4% of the participants were living as four or more people in their dwelling, 23.9% of them were living as two individuals, 26.3% of them were living ←19 | 20→as three individuals and 7.4 % of them were living alone. About 25.8% of the dwellings had an income level below the subsistence wage. It had been determined that 10% of the participants with a household size of four or more individuals had an income level of 1404 TRY and less, 10.40% of them had an income level in between 1405–1568 TRY, 18.2% of them had an income level in between 1569–3569 TRY and 3.1% of them had an income level of 3570 TRY and more. According to the obtained findings, it had been determined that 42.40% of the participants living as four or more individuals in the dwelling had income level below 5152.71 TRY—which was declared as the limit of poverty for November 2017— and that 20.40% of the participants had an income level below 1567.45 TRY—which was declared as the limit of hunger [23]. It had been determined that 73 % of the participants were not satisfied with the total income of the dwelling (x̄:3.08, std:1.04575), 74 % of them were not satisfied with their lives in general sense (x̄: 3.99, std: 0.80777), 71.8 % of them were not satisfied with the way they sustain their lives (x̄:4.05, std:0.79461).

3.2 Determination of the Relation in between the Level of Perception of the Effects of Tourism by the Local Community and the Support of Tourism

In order to be able to determine how the residents of a district perceive the effects of the improvement of tourism, first KMO and Bartlett Sphericity test had been applied on the scale of effects of tourism. According to the data obtained, the value of KMO had been found to be 0.873. As the result of Bartlett Sphericity test, it had been concluded that there is not significantly high relations among the variables, and that the data was suitable for applying factor analysis (X2:6718.784, sd:561, p<0,00).

According to the Scree plot graph obtained as the result of the principal components analysis made, it had been decided to constitute the scale by four dimensions. Following the determination of the number of dimensions, varimax vertical rotation had been performed in order to determine the distribution of the propositions to factors. Total variance percentage of four factors observed in the cumulative variance section is 51.232. In social sciences, variance rates varying at the range of 40%–60% are being deemed ideal [24].

Factor loads of the first dimension are consisting of 11 articles varying in between 0.869 and 0.501. The rate of defining of total variance by the dimension is 20.760%, and reliability coefficient is 0.934. According to this, the factor’s reliability level is very high. Factor loads of the second factor are consisting of 12 articles varying in between 0.669 and 0.463. The rate of defining of total variance by the dimension is 13.382%, and reliability coefficient is 0.871. Factor loads of the third dimension are consisting of 7 articles varying in between 0.788 and 0.481. The rate of defining of total variance by the dimension is 10.241%, and reliability coefficient is 0.813. Factor loads of the fourth dimension are consisting of 4 articles varying in between 0.757 and 0.606. The rate of defining of total variance by the dimension is ←20 | 21→10.241%, and reliability coefficient is 0.814 (Tab. 1). According to the data obtained, the reliability level of the dimensions is very high.

Tab. 1: Factors Affecting the Behaviors and Attitudes of the Residents of District against Tourism, and Results of Reliability Analysis

Dimensions

Component

Eigenvalues

Variance

Item

Factor Load

Cronbach’s Alpha

1

Effects of tourism-oriented decisions

7.058

% 20.760

11

0,869–0,501

0.934**

2

Positive effects of tourism on economic environment

4.550

% 13.382

12

0,696–0,463

0.871**

3

Negative effects of tourism on physical environment

3.482

% 10.241

7

0,788–0,481

0.813**

4

Negative effects of tourism on social environment

2.329

% 6.849

4

0,757–0,606

0.814**

Cronbach’s alpha (α) ≥0 .9 is perfect;** 0.9 > α ≥ 0.8 is good, *0.8 > α ≥ 0.7 is acceptable

The first dimension is “effects of tourism oriented decisions” as it is covering the articles expressing the measures taken and interferences made by the central and local administrations for the improvement of tourism; the second dimension is “positive effects of tourism on economic environment” as it is covering the positive expressions such as increasing of income level and living standards, increasing of job opportunities and increasing of the number of local and independent enterprises; the third dimension is “negative effects of tourism on physical environment” as it is consisting of negative expressions such as the historical environment becomes destroyed by the improvement of tourism, the facilities constructed for the tourists dispels the authentic identity of the district, tourists cause problems such as noise, pollution and traffic jam; the fourth dimension is “negative effects of tourism on social environment” as it is covering negative expressions such as neighborhood relations weaken by the improvement of tourism, crime rates increase in the district, the peace of the district decreases and the authentic identity of the district spoils (Tab. 1).

←21 | 22→

According to the results of KMO and Bartlett Sphericity test made in order to be able to reveal the general tourism support of the residents of district, it had been found that the KMO value of the scale is 0.769. As the result of Bartlett Sphericity test, it had been concluded that the data is proper for the application of factor analysis (X2: 2294,488, sd:28, p<0.00). Two dimensions had been determined as the result of the PCA operation performed on the scale (Tab. 2). Total variance percentage of these two dimensions is 73.439. It can be said that the obtained total variance rate of 73.439% is pretty satisfactory. Factor loads of the first dimension are consisting of four articles varying in between 0.924 and 0.888. The rate of defining of total variance by the dimension is 42.078%, and reliability coefficient is 0.933. According to this, the factor’s reliability level is very high. Factor loads of the second factor are consisting of four articles varying in between 0.835 and 0.713. The rate of defining of total variance by the dimension is 31.361%, and reliability coefficient is 0.790 (Tab. 2).

Tab. 2: Criteria Determining the General Tourism Support of the Residents of District

Dimen-sions

Component

Eigenvalues

Variance

Item

Factor load

Cronbach’s Alpha

1

Motive of participation in tourism activities

3.366

42.078

4

0.924–0.888

0.933

2

Motive of support of tourism activities

2.509

31.361

4

0.835–0.713

0.790

*Cronbach’s alpha (α) ≥0 .9 is perfect; **0.9 > α ≥ 0.8 is good, *0.8 > α ≥ 0.7 is acceptable

The first dimension has been conceptualized as “motive of participation in tourism activities” as it is covering the expressions of “I would rent my house for enterprises such as hotel, guest house, restaurant” (x̄:2.96, std:2.9609), “I would support my neighbors for them to rent their houses for enterprises such as hotel, guest house, restaurant” (x̄:3.1522, std: 1.47698), “I would support my neighbors for them to rent a part of their houses to the tourists” (x̄: 3.05, std:1.42025) and “I would rent a part of my house if the tourism is improved” (x̄: 2.88, std:1.51112). It has been named as “motive of support of tourism activities” as it is covering the expressions of “I’m supporting the entertainment programs performed for the tourist groups” (x̄: 4.17, std:0.75275), “I’m supporting the opening of enterprises such as hotel, guest house, restaurant at the district for the tourists” (x̄:4.07, std: 0.99398), “I’m supporting the historical and cultural activities performed for the tourists” (x̄:4.32, std:0.69033), “I’m supporting the physical changes on historical structure made with the purpose of increasing the service quality of enterprise such as hotel, guests house, restaurant” (x̄: 4.12, std:0.93052).

←22 | 23→

Shapiro-Wilk test, performed in order to determine whether the scores of scale indicate a normal distribution or not, had been applied. As all the scores don’t indicate a normal distribution (p<0.05) according to the results of Shapiro-Wilk, Spearman correlation test—from among the non-parametric tests—had been applied on the variables in order to determine the direction and severity of the relation in between the effects of tourism perceived by the local community and quality of life (Tab. 3).

Tab. 3: Results of ShapiroWilk Test Made on the Factors Determining the Effects of Tourism and Support

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova

Shapiro-Wilkb

Statistic

df

Sig.

Statistic

df

Sig. (p)

Effects of tourism-oriented decisions

0.236

401

0.000

0,770

401

0.000

Positive effects of tourism on economic environment

0.081

401

0.000

0,976

401

0.000

Negative effects of tourism on physical environment

0.091

401

0.000

0,953

401

0.000

Negative effects of tourism on social environment

0.155

401

0.000

0,825

401

0.000

Motive of participation in tourism activities

0.141

401

0.000

0,907

401

0.000

Motive of support of tourism activities

0.113

401

0.000

0,904

Details

Pages
640
ISBN (PDF)
9783631783979
ISBN (ePUB)
9783631783986
ISBN (MOBI)
9783631783993
ISBN (Softcover)
9783631782743
Language
English
Publication date
2019 (June)
Tags
Landscape architecture Architecture Ecology Urban planning Sustainability
Published
Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2019. 640 pp., 226 fig. b/w, 73 tables.

Biographical notes

Murat Özyavuz (Volume editor)

Murat Özyavuz is a Professor at the Department of Landscape Architecture, Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University. He studied Landscape Architecture at Ankara University and obtained a Ph.D. degree from the Landscape Architecture Department of the Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences. He is the author of many national and international publications and has worked for many research projects.

Previous

Title: New Approaches to Spatial Planning and Design