African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 6(23), pp. 5367-5376, 19 October, 2011 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR DOI: 10.5897/AJAR11.016 ISSN 1991-637X ©2011 Academic Journals Full Length Research Paper

Quality criteria of urban parks: The case of Alaaddın Hill (Konya-Turkey)

Ümmügülsüm Ter

Department of City and Regional Planning, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Selcuk University, 42031, Konya,

Turkey. E-mail: gulsumter@hotmail.com. Tel: +903322232203. Fax: +903322410635.

Accepted 22 July, 2011

This study aimed to determine the quality criteria that are effective in assessing urban parks as qualified/successful places, which are arranged in order to meet the needs of people living cities for access to natural environment and opportunities for social communication. As a result of a comprehensive literature research, quality criteria for urban parks are defined as accessibility, activities/variety, comfort and image and sociability. User-behaviour, needs and expectations were also taken into consideration, as these components will also play an important role in the quality of the place. The determined quality criteria were assessed at Alaaddin Hill, a big tumulus place in the city centre of Konya that serves as an urban park. A questionnaire survey was carried out on a heterogeneous group consisting of 350 people chosen at random. The quality of the Alaaddin Hill site was assessed through interpretation of field observations and questionnaire responses. It was concluded that the four criteria examined were very important to the assessment of a successful urban park and should inform the design principles of such projects. Key words: Urban park, quality criteria, Alaaddin Hill, Konya.

INTRODUCTION Urban parks have a strategic importance for quality of life in our urbanizing society and play a significant role in increasing the liveability of cities (Biddulph, 1999). Previous studies indicate that natural places such as urban parks, forests, green belts, and natural features such as trees and water contribute to quality of life within an urban context (Chiesura, 2004). Urban parks are a point of attraction in cities, and are arranged with the aim of meeting the need for natural environment (green, nature, recreation, comfort, peace, silence, shelter) and the need for social communication against the negative effects of urbanization, industrialization and population increase (Marcus et al., 1990). Urban parks, open spaces and green places are effective in permitting urban residents to get closer to nature (Gold, 1980) and in developing positive behaviours such as adapting to and embracing the environment in which they live by increasing their socio-cultural awareness.

Urban parks fulfil several functions, including providing opportunities for air circulation in and around the city, moderating temperature, absorbing or disseminating noise, providing landscape and sources of nature, providing a refuge where urban residents can escape

from the crowd, noise and stress of the city; urban parks also provide psychological support in terms of refreshing people and adding value to their daily lives as they increase the quality of society in terms of education, health, psychological, aesthetic and cultural aspects (Yıldızcı, 1978; Richter, 1981; Ulrich, 1981; More et al., 1988; Ter, 2002). The purpose of this study is to propose quality criteria that are effective in assessing the role of urban parks in increasing quality of life for people living in cities as qualified/successful places; and to determine design principles for creating a qualified living environment. This study is important since it proposes design principles for urban parks, improves current situation and informs the design of new urban park areas. OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON QUALITY CRITERIA OF URBAN PARKS Urban parks are physical environments where people living in the city, who have different cultures and socio-economic status, come together in their leisure time and commune with nature; which are organized for physical,

5368 Afr. J. Agric. Res. ecological, psychological and recreational purposes; which bear active and passive outdoor activities such as meeting, entertainment, recreation etc., which help reduce the stresses of urban life. Aspects such as “amount of public green spaces per inhabitant”, “public parks” and “recreation areas” are often mentioned as important factors in making a city liveable, pleasant and attractive for its citizens (Chiesura, 2004). Urban parks, a public domain used commonly by all citizens, have an important role in increasing the quality of the society, as they provide opportunity for increasing social communication and interaction (Marcus et al., 1990; Coley et al., 1997; Thompson, 2002; Chiesura, 2004; Low et al., 2005; Aydin and Ter, 2009; Wong, 2009).

The quality of urban parks is directly related to the level of realization of optional activities among the outdoor activities, which can be assessed under three headings as: necessary activities, optional and social activities (Gehl, 1987). If the quality of an urban park is good, the level of realization of optional activities will increase. The increase in optional activities enables owning of the place and becomes a factor in increasing the usage frequency of and social activities carried out in the place. With these qualities, urban parks play a role in increasing the quality of urban life and become places that increase the value of the city (Burgess et al., 1988).

The quality of living environment, life quality and social structure are inter-related (Koç, 1998). For this reason, the fact that important developments in the quality of environment make positive contributions to the life and the positive changes in life have positive effects on the quality of the place. These interactions will provide huge experience in the establishment of a living culture increasingly sensitive to quality. Since the quality of living environment directly affects liveability, the mutual interaction between the environmental characteristics comprising the liveability of settlements and the individual characteristics provides clues about the search for quality (Aydın and Ter, 2008). Kamp et al. (2003) published a comprehensive review of liveability and life quality and emphasized that the presence of open and green high-quality areas in the physical area and where recreational and spare time activities can be carried out, are important factors in personal development. Mitchell (2000) pointed out that health, safety, physical environment, personal development and social development components directly affect quality of life, and that the quality of each component played an effective role in increasing life quality.

Rapoport (2004) determined that, in order to mention the quality of place, the expectations of users and their sensory effects that are factors in their choosing the park, are important indicators. In this context, it is necessary to assess the expediency of places, the extent to which it meets the needs of users, and its usability. Lennard (1987) suggests that the design of successful urban spaces should promote social life and a sense of

wellbeing. Smith et al. (1997) created a list of quality and needs principles for urban communities. They focused on six key factors for reaching success/quality in designing urban places: 1) livability (represents the basic qualities that must exist for a community to be successful, consisting of survival, personal health and development, environmental health, comfort, and safety and security), 2) character (described by sense of place, warmth, sense of time, stability, and aesthetics), 3) connection (includes fit, continuity, unity, cultural symbolism, social interaction, and sense of belonging), 4) mobility (includes accessibility, convenience, opportunities for activity, and legibility), 5) personal freedom (includes control, personal expression, privacy and territoriality, and affordability) and 6) diversity (includes variety, choice, interest, awareness).

Marcus and Francis (1990) determined that outdoor places can be assessed as eligible/qualified if they are easy to access and view; have aesthetic attraction; provide the activities to meet the expectations of users; provide safe and natural environments; are arranged according to climatic changes; and regularly maintained. The Project for Public Spaces (2001) suggests that a successful space has four key qualities: 1) “The space is accessible; 2) people are engaged in activities there; 3) the space is comfortable and has a good image; 4) it is a sociable place, one where people meet each other and take people when they come to visit.” Kent and Madden (1998) of the Project for Public Spaces and the Urban Parks Institute, respectively, push the notion of a “successful” urban park beyond physical and community qualities. They claim, “If urban parks can evolve from their current, primarily recreational role, into a new role as a catalyst for community development and enhancement, parks will be an essential component in transforming and enriching our cities. Most important of all is sociability; the park should be a place to meet other people - an integral part of community life”.

Yücel and Yıldızcı (2006) evaluated the criteria put forward by The Project for Public Spaces, and concluded that, while criteria of comfort, image, safety, maintenance and sociality are effective criteria in users perceiving the parks as qualified, the criterion of variety does not affect users’ perceptions of the parks as qualified. Bentley et al. (1993) discussed how the design of a place affects people’s preferences. They emphasized seven key issues in the design of places giving relative respond: permeability, variety, legibility, robustness, richness, visual appropriateness and personalization. In this approach, they emphasized that assessing issues such as where users can go or cannot go, a place’s usability for a different purpose, to what extent the opportunities provided by the place are understood etc., are important in the design of successful and qualified places. Marcus and Wischemann (1990) determines that accessory elements used in park arrangement and these elements’ realizing the needs of users, can be evaluated as criteria

Ter et al. 5369 Table 1. Key attributes/criteria of quality of urban parks.

Users Activity / variety Access and linkage Comfort and Image Sociability Behaviours Perceptions Requirements Personal Calmness Comfortable Safety Health Environment Needs/expectations

Sitting Chatting Resting Eating Watching Walking Lying Celebration Fun Vitality

- Legibility - Continuity - Proximity - Convenience - Walkability - Accessibility -Connection with transportation -Connection with activities

Safety Sittability Walkability Greenness Cleanliness Landscape elements (benches, pavement, Steps, bins, lighting Units, ledges, greenery/Trees, sculptures, buffets, WC)

Co-operation Friendliness Interactivity Diversity Storytelling Friendliness

Figure 1. Location of Alaaddin Hill in Konya.

in supporting outdoor activities in urban parks and in classification of them as “qualified” places. Living and non-living accessory elements (benches, pavements, pedestrian pathways, steps, bins, lighting units, ledges, greenery/trees, sculptures, buffets, WC, etc.) to be arranged in urban parks increase their functional features, as well as the visual quality of the place and support its aesthetic view. Plants are important as a living accessory element and have significant functions in place design. The use of these accessory elements in place design makes an important contribution to increasing visual effect and emphasis of the place; creating a microclimatic effect, especially in regions where dry climate dominates; adding extra dimensions to the place thanks to their size, shape and groupings; enhances the place in terms of shape, colour and pattern, giving shape

to empty places and dividing them into parts, protecting the place from environmental effects such as wind, sound, dust etc., directing users to the place and their finding their way. Following a review of the literature, the parameters to be used in assessing the quality of urban parks are explained in Table 1. In addition, users’ personal assessments and their views related to the places they experienced are also accepted as measures of the standards/quality of physical environment. METHODOLOGY The methodology of this study was based on usage characteristics and place quality of Alaaddin Hill, located in the centre of Konya (Figure 1) and used by people in the region for their recreational needs. With this purpose, first and foremost, the historical

5370 Afr. J. Agric. Res. Table 2. Gap widths of Quintet Likert scale.

Item Item description Score range 5 Very good 4.21-5.00 4 Good 3.41-4.20 3 Moderate 2.61-3.40 2 Bad 1.81-2.60 1 very bad 1.00-1.80

If the value is � 3.40 the quality is bad; if the value is > 3.40 the quality is good.

development process of Alaaddin Hill and associated planning studies were evaluated. Based on the findings of the literature review, the present study used a questionnaire to evaluate the Alaaddin Hill study area in terms of quality of physical environment, activities carried out in the park, behaviours, needs and expectations of users, and the qualities of accessory elements. The study sample consists of a heterogeneous group of 350 people who were chosen at random. The evaluation related to the use of the research area was carried out during May to June, 2009. A questionnaire form consisting of three parts was prepared in order to determine the participants’ opinions of Alaaddin Hill. The first section comprised demographic data (gender, age, profession, level of income); the second part investigated the purpose and time of use and usage frequency of the places preferred in the park; the third part related to the quality of the places in the park. The variables in the first part were independent, while the variables in the second part were dependent.

SPSS (Version 13.0 for Windows) software was used for statistical analyses in this study; values were interpreted on the basis of frequencies and means. Frequencies were applied for the independent variables. Participants’ opinions about the study area were determined by means of 5-point Likert type scale (very good, good, medium, bad, very bad) (Table 2), which were analyzed using mean values of the answers given by the participants. The values were determined via the formula of Gap width=Range / group number, Gap width were determined as = 4 / 5 = 0.8. The mean of the answers given by all participants in relation to the variables was evaluated as representing the views of the participants about the place and thus the quality of the place. In addition to the visitor questionnaire, the study also used a range of other data-collection tools to concretize the study findings, including one-to-one interviews, observations, photographs; and visual materials such as drawings and schemes. DETERMINING USAGE FEATURES AND SPACE QUALITY OF ALAADDIN HILL Defining the study area and development process Alaaddin Hill is a raised area of approximately 11.00 ha that is the focal point of all the roads to the centre of Konya. After drilling excavations carried out in 1941 and 1944, it was determined that the first settlement in the city was established at Alaaddin Hill in the 7th century B.C. at the time of Phrygians (Önder, 1999). Alaaddin Hill, to have served as a settlement area during Byzantine, Roman and Seljukian periods, was an open-green area bearing the traces of previous periods in the city centre during the last years of the Ottoman Empire and the beginning of the Republican period. During the Seljukian period, Alaaddin Mosque was built on Alaaddin Saloon and Officers’ Club (Figure 2), the area is designated as an“ archaeological, historical and natural protected area”, dated 13.11.1982 (Ter, 2002).

The first planning studies in Alaaddin Hill were started in 1946. Between 1946 and 1970, design officers’ club, cinema, people’s house, wedding ceremony hall, forestation-irrigation and soil levelling projects, vehicle and passenger ways were carried out on the hill. In structuring/housing process of the place, the history and archaeological characteristics of the hill were not taken into consideration; however, with the environmental arrangements that were realized, Alaaddin Hill played an important role in the green-space network of the city. Alaaddin Hill is popular among domestic and foreign tourists coming to the city with the specific aim of visiting the historical and cultural attractions on the hill. It has become a point of attraction used in every season, as it provides people living in the region and coming to the city centre with recreational, relaxation and meeting activities. The spatial features of Alaaddin Hill are summarized in Table 3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Observation results

Alaaddin Hill, which is a focal point in the city centre with its historical and cultural characteristics, is arranged especially for passive recreational activities due to the limitations of its status as an archaeological and natural protected area (Figure 3). The usage intensity of the park varies according to seasons. The most intensively used areas are passive green areas and tea gardens. It was determined that green areas in the south and west of the park are used for activities such as sitting, walking, watching the environment, refreshment, entertaining in groups and meeting, while tea gardens and children play areas are used for meeting, entertaining and spending long hours. Continental climatic conditions prevail in the city and, therefore, these attractions are especially popular at weekends, during periods of sunny and hot weather.

It was determined that the enclosed areas such as the multi-purpose saloon and tea gardens were preferred for the cultural activities and special organizations (such as weddings) organized in winter season. Alaaddin Mosque and the remains of Seljukian Palace situated in the park area attract large numbers of domestic and foreign tourists during each season of the year. Therefore, it was observed that in that part of the park, activities such as refreshing, resting, watching the environment etc. were intensified. In addition, it was also determined that Alaaddin Mosque and its premises were intensively used by people living in the city for the purpose of worship, especially at mid-day on Fridays. Questionnaire results The survey consisted of 350 questionnaires completed by randomly chosen visitors to the site (52.4% female, 47.6% male). It was determined that Alaaddin Hill was mostly used by the 16 to 24 age group (56.8%) and by students (52.4%). This was followed by retirees (9.5%), Hill; today, due to the remains of Seljukian Palace, Multi-purpose civil servants (9.5%) and housewives (9.2%).

Ter et al. 5371

��

� � �

�

������������� ����� ���������

���������������� ���� �� �������� ���������� �

�� ��������� ����� ����� ���� ���������

��� ������������������������������������ ��������������

��������!�"������� ��� # ����$$%&�$''$��

Figure 2. Existing buildings and activity areas in the park (form author’s archive, 2010).

Table 3. Spatial features of Alaaddin Hill.

Basic criteria General features Location Focal point in the city centre Size 105560 m2

Presence of open area 99461.40 m2

Presence of close area 6098.60 m2

Presence of green area 50.000 m2

Accessibility The opportunity of accessibility on foot from the city centre, commuting (tramway, minibus, municipal bus) from all neighbourhoods and by means of private vehicle

Present functions Tea gardens, kinder gardens, multipurpose saloon, buffet, mosque, remains of palace, officers’ club, WC, Passive green areas, parking lots.

5372 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 3. Contd.

Type of activity Sitting, Resting, Watching, play, eating Food, prayer, participating in socio-cultural activities

City furniture

Sitting unit (107 items), Camellia (67 items), Arbour (80 items), dustbin (109 items), Plastic element (15 items), WC (4 items), illuminating element (252 items), game tools (a total of 1 item, swing- see-saw-climbing (35 items)

� � �

� � �

� � �

�� ��()��� ��(�� � ��� ���(������

�� ��()��� ��(������# ��

�� ��()��� ��(���� ������������������

# �����(���� ������� �����*����

�� ��(����(����������# ��

+���(���� �����# ��,�����(�� � ����������(������

�� ��(����(����������# ��

,�����(������� ����(� ��� �������

(�����!�� ��(�# � ��� ����

Figure 3. Diverse activities located in the park (from author’s archive, 2010).

It was found that 51.5% of the users of the park are university students and graduates, 26.8% are high school graduates and 16.4% are secondary school graduates. In terms of usage, it was found that 26.2% of respondents used the park only at weekends, compared with 13.4% of people who stated they used the park on weekdays.

While 21.4% visited once a month, 21.1% visited rarely. The participants mostly (48.8%) used the area between

the hours of 12.00 and 14.00. This high proportion is influenced by the park’s location in the city centre and the presence of training centres, public institution, and shopping areas near the park. In terms of seasonal

Ter et al. 5373

Table 4. Assessment of study area in terms of its sensorial effects on users.

The sensorial effects on users of the Alaaddin Hill X S

I feel safe when I spend time in the park. 3.43 1.08 The park has a very quite and peaceful atmosphere. 2.68 0.96 The environment is very clean; it is felt that regular cleaning and maintenance are carried out. 2.61 0.95 I can act comfortably in the park, it has a comfortable environment. 2.92 0.92 It is an entertaining place since there are various activities taking place. 2.79 0.98 All the elements in the park are placed orderly. 2.60 0.89 It has a calming environment. I feel peaceful here. 2.33 0.91 It is a quite refreshing environment 2.32 0.86 I can easily find my way when walking in the park; I do not have the fear of getting lost. 1.95 0.90 General mean 2.62 0.94

X = Mean S= standard deviation. variations, 43.8% of the participants stated that they used the park in June, July and August, while 33.9% used the park in March, April and May, and 14.9% used the park in all months. The city’s prevailing continental climate is an effective factor in the intensive use of the park during spring and summer months.

Most of the survey participants stated that they used public transportation to visit the area. The nearby student dormitories and residences are a factor increasing the proportion of people coming to the park on foot to 15.5%. Most of the participants (61.9%) stated that they preferred to use the west side of the park. They stated that, since Zafer pedestrian zone is the most vivid and active region, where pedestrian circulation is the highest, this was an important factor in their choosing this side of the park. Determining the purpose and frequency of usage of the study area is important in identifying user behaviours. The survey responses showed that 37.5% of participants come to Alaaddin Hill frequently in order to relax in green areas, while 35.4% stated that they frequently visit in order to spend time in the tea garden. 33% of respondents stated that they sometimes used the area for the purpose of walking, while 26.5% stated that they sometimes used the area in order to participate in socio-cultural activities. Since opinions of outdoor places were considered to play an important role in a place’s attraction and its perceived quality, the characteristics of the place were examined, primarily in terms of the general view and the place’s sensorial effect on users. The sensorial effect of the outer place and the meaning attributed to it were accepted as reason for users’ preferring the place. The study area was examined within this context and 82.8% of the participants stated that the general view of Alaaddin Hill is “good” ( X =3.47). Safety was considered as “good” ( X =3.43), quietness ( X =2.68), clean, ( X =2.61), comfortable ( X =2.92), entertaining ( X =2.79), orderly ( X =2.60), recreating ( X =2.33), calming ( X =2.32) and legibility ( X =1.95) were found as “bad”. Based on the mean category

responses, the general assessment of the park is “bad”, with a value of X =2.62 (Table 4).

Diversity of activities in urban parks and their usage proportion are among the factors affecting the quality of the place. In the preparation stage of the design, various issues should be examined, such as whether the users have the opportunity to participate in different activities in the park and whether the park is attractive at different times of the year. Examining Alaaddin Hill within this context, there are places for activities open to public use such as multi-purpose saloon, child parks, tea gardens, passive green areas, religious and touristic structures. The questionnaire results show that 26.8% of participants preferred to use green areas, especially at weekends. This usage category is followed by sitting areas (23.2%) and use of tea gardens (19%). The percentage of people using the multi-purpose saloon and its premises is 2.1%.

In addition to examining the diversity and popularity of activities, the evaluations also considered that physical and visual quality of activity places is very important in users’ perceptions of the quality of the park (Table 5). Examining the mean category responses, as the legibility of green areas was high, spatial aspects were satisfactory and it served as an identity and image element, the visual quality of the park was therefore categorized as is “good” ( X > 3.40).

Easy access and high legibility are effective factors in deeming a park a highly-qualified park. Strong relationships with pedestrian ways, bicycle and nearby public transportation routes, public transportation stations and parking lots; entrance and exit points that are easily seen and read from the outside of the park by first-time visitors; passenger ways and paths directing users to where they wish to go; strong connection between functional areas, building functional relationships with the park premises and ensuring easy navigation within the park via markings, directly affect the usage potential of the park (PPS, 2001). Examining the mean questionnaire responses, it was concluded that the accessibility of the study area was “bad”, with a value of X = 2.33 (Table 6).

5374 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 5. Assessing physical and visual quality of activity places.

Components

Multiple purpose saloon and its

premises

Children play area

Tea gardens

Sitting areas

Green areas

X S X S X S X S X S

It is arranged for being easy to find and read. 2.68 0.93 2.66 0.75 2.07 0.76 3.38 0.99 3.60 0.62

It is safe; since there is sufficient lighting and appropriate landscape elements are used in the arrangement.

2.98 0.83

3.03 0.83

3.06 1.05

3.30 0.94

2.90 0.83

Since the activity area can meet users’ needs/expectations. 2.94 0.85 3.08 0.81 2.35 0.82 2.72 0.91 3.45 1.09

Strong relationship with other activity areas 2.90 0.83 2.85 0.85 2.63 0.84 2.27 0.88 3.03 0.85

High visual quality and aesthetic value 2.95 0.91 3.05 1.05 2.54 0.93 2.98 0.85 3.91 0.70

X = Mean, S= standard deviation.

Table 6. Evaluating Alaaddin Hill in terms of accessibility.

Components X S

Entrance and exit points of the park can be easily read. 2.06 0.91 The connection between passenger ways and activity areas within the park is very good. 2.32 0.88 The relationship between public transportation stations and the park is very good. 1.99 0.95 The relationship between the parking lot areas and the park is very good. 3.00 0.98 Secure junction between passenger ways and traffic ways heading to the park ; 2.37 0.96 The relationship between the park and the other parks in the city centre and passenger ways is strong. 2.25 0.86 General Deviation 2.33 0.92

X = Mean S= standard deviation. Users coming to the park on foot and by bicycle stated that they could not reach the park easily and comfortably, as Alaaddin Hill forms a juncture in the city centre and the tramway line and traffic ways formed rings around the park; users visiting the park with private cars stated that they did not prefer to come to the park as there was lack of parking lots in and around the park.

Comfort and image reflect the sensorial values that are acquired by people after experiencing places. Factors such as a good first impression of the park, the use of appropriate materials, activity areas’ complying with the standards the presence of sufficient and ergonomic seating, use of water, shelter against bad weather, presence of park management etc. affect the quality of the park (PPS, 2001). Quality of one accessory element effective in making a place liveable is accepted to influence the quality of the whole related elements. Participants were asked their opinions of the quality of

the landscaping elements of the park. Participants assessed the quality of green areas ( X =2.13) and sufficiency of green areas ( X =2.11), sitting areas ( X =3.03), dustbins ( X =3.07), illuminating elements ( X =3.08), arrangements for group use ( X =2.54), its comfort ( X =3.17) and the maintenance of accessory elements as “bad”; they assessed sufficiency and quality of floor covering ( X =3.84) and border elements ( X =3.69) as “good”. Based upon the mean response values, the general assessment of landscape elements was “bad”, with a value of X = 3.05.

In order to agree that an urban park is of high quality, it is necessary to determine to what extent this park provides the opportunity for sociality for which it was designed. Therefore, in order to determine the role of the study area in socialization, the questionnaire investigated visitor group structure; it was found that 53.9% of

participants always come to the park alone, while 36.9% stated that they never come to the park alone. 19.3% of participants stated that they visit the park with friends, while 14.6% stated that they visit the park with their families. Overall, 49% of respondents felt that the sitting areas in the activity areas and general areas had a bad effect on socialization, since they were not arranged for group use. Conclusion Urban parks in locations where the relationship between humans and the environment is seriously damaged, building density is high and traffic is congested- provide a range of attractions, including the opportunity for visitors to relax and re-establish contact with the environment. Analysis of the fieldwork, including observations, verbal interviews and the visitor questionnaire, produced the following conclusions:

1) Urban parks provide natural environments that help overcome urban stress and thus play an important role in increasing the quality of urban life. Assessment of the success of such places depends on sensorial, emotional and mental relationships between the users and the environment. Therefore, user perceptions of their envi-ronment are considerably important in this assessment.

2) There is easy access to the park by means of passenger- bicycle, public transportation vehicles and private vehicles; there is clear signage and activities are easy for visitors to locate. This permits users to navigate the park and easily find various locations, thereby positively affecting visitor perceptions of safety and increasing usage of the park.

3) Providing options aimed to meet user needs and expectations and preparing an environment that increases the attractiveness of the places which ensures sensitivity to quality in the place. In the design of urban parks, it is expected that they should provide the opportunity for optional and social activities and should include popular activities such as recreation, entertain-ment, participating in active/passive recreational active-ties. In addition, elements of attraction should be created in activity areas that are complementary elements of the park, and users should have the opportunity to use every area of the park and make contact with other users.

4) In parks where individuals make contact with the city and people living in the city, providing the opportunity for socializing as well as individuality develops the feeling of embracing the city and helps increase social commitment.

Features that differentiate parks help to define its spirit and sincerity, that is to say its character, play an impor-tant role in users evaluating this park as differing from others and feeling that they belong to this place. In sensorial terms, the parks –which have a good image and in which artistic elements are emphasized and

Ter et al. 5375 comfortable, aesthetic and necessary landscape ele-ments are used- are listed among high-quality places. Another factor affecting the quality of urban parks is maintenance and management. Parks that have a management plan in place, and in which regular main-tenance and repairs are carried out, are high-quality places where the users feel comfortable and safe. REFERENCES Aydın D, Ter Ü (2008). Outdoor Space Quality: Case Study of a

University Campus Plaza. Archnet-IJAR. Inter. J. Archit. Res., 1(2&3): 189-203.

Bentley I, Alcock A, Murrain P, McGlynn S, Smith G (1993). Responsive environments: A manual for designers, Butterworth Architecture, London, p. 27.

Biddulph M (1999). Bringing Vitality to a Campus Environment. Urban Design Int., 4(3&4): 153-166.

Burgess J, Harrison CM, Limb M (1988). People, parks and the urban green: A study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban Stud., 25(6): 455-473.

Chiesura A (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainabile city. Landsc. Urban Plann., 68: 129-138.

Coley R, Kuo F, Sullivan W (1997). Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environ. behav., 29: 468-494.

Gehl J (1987). Life Between Buildings, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Gold SM (1980). Recreation Planning and Design. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

Kamp I, Leidelmeijer K, Marsman G, Hollander A (2003). Urban Environmental Quality and Human Well-Being Towards a Conceptual Framework and Demarcation of Concepts; A Literature Study. Landsc. Urban Plann., 65: 5-18

Kent F, Madden K (1998). Urban Parks Online. Creating Great Urban Parks. Urban Parks Institute: Great Parks/Great Cities, Seattle, Wa.

Koç H (1998). Kaliteli Ya�am Çevreleri Arayı�ında, Mimarlıkta Kalite. Yapı ve Ya�am 98, Kongre Kitabı, TMMOM, Mimarlar Odası Bursa �ubesi, pp. 134-148.

Lennard SHC (1987). Livable Cities. People and Places: social design principles for the future of the city. Gondolier Press, Southampton, NY.

Low S, Taplin D, Scheld S (2005). Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space and Cultural Diversity, Austin, TX, University of Texas Press. Marcus CC, Francis C (1990). People Places, Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space, Edited by; Clare Cooper Marcus and Francis, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Marcus CC, Watsky CM, Insley E, Francis C (1990). Neighborhood Parks. “People Places, Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space”, Edited by; Clare Cooper Marcus and Carolyn Francis, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 69-118.

Marcus CC, Wischemann T (1990). Campus Outdoor Spaces. “People Places, Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space”, Edited by; Clare Cooper Marcus and Carolyn Francis, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 143-170.

Mitchell G (2000). Indicators as tools to guide progresson the sustainable development pathway.In: Lawrence, R.J. (Ed.), sustaining human Settlement: A Challenge for the New Millennium, Urban International Press, pp. 55-104.

More TA, Stevens T, Allen PG (1988). Valuation of urban parks. Landsc. Urban Plann., 15(1-2): 139-152.

Önder M (1999). Gez Dünyayı Gör Konya’yı. Konya Büyük�ehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları, No:29, Merhaba Ofset, Konya. Project for Public Spaces (2001). How to turn a place around: a handbook of creating successful public spaces, New York; Project for Public Spaces.

Rapoport A (2004). Kültür, Mimarlık, Tasarım, Translation; Selcuk Batur, YEM Press, �stanbul.

5376 Afr. J. Agric. Res. Richter G (1981). Formen und Funktionen des Stadtgrüns. In:Richter,

G. (Ed) Handbuch Stadtgrün-Landschaftsarchitektur im städtischen Freiraum. BLU Verlagsgesellschaft, München, p. 319.

Smith T, Nelischer M, Perkins N (1997). Quality of an Urban Community: a Framework for Understanding the Relationship Between Quality and Physical Form. Landsc. Urban Plann., 39: 229-241.

Ter Ü (2002). Konya kenti açık ve ye�il alan varlı�ı içinde tarihi kent merkezinin kentsel tasarımı üzerine bir ara�tırma (A research on the urban design of the historical city centre in the open and green spaces of the city of Konya), A.Ü.Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi (PhD Thesis, Ankara University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences), Ankara (In Turkish).

Thompson CW (2002). Urban open spaces in the 21st century. Landsc.

Urban Plann., 60(2): 59-72. Ulrich RS (1981). Natural versus urban sciences: some psycho-

physiological effects. Environ. Behav., 13: 523-556. Wong KK (2009). Urban park visiting habits and leisure activities of

residents in Hong Kong, China. Manag. Leis., 14: 125-140. Yücel GF, Yıldızcı AC (2006). Kent Parkları ile ilgili Kalite Kriterlerini

Olu�turulması (Setting quality criteria in city parks). �tüdergisi/a, mimarlık, planlama, tasarım, cilt:5, Sayı:2, Kısım: 2: 220-230.