Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=7CxGED4x5pHs-l3Ye0e7qPC4EjmRhzQI3MN3kHGbvUY&_path=id%3D596839%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Dtr%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Evaluation of Effective Criteria in Housing and Residential Location Selection in the Context of Quality of Urban Life; Case of Gaziantep

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 138 - 146, 28.08.2019

Emine Mazıcıoğlu M. Serhat Yenice

Öz

This study
examines the variables that affect the choice of housing and housing among
high-income household users in terms of urban quality of life. Besides, it
focuses on identifying the spatial demands and preferences of this group. The
scope of this study consists of the urban sub-region of Ibrahim, which consists
of Atatürk, Batıkent, and Güvenevler neighbourhoods in the west and northwest
of Gaziantep. These neighbourhoods are generally the urban area where middle
and upper-income households choose. The research method is based on the
determination and measurement of variables affecting the quality of life and
satisfaction level of residential user groups. As a result of the research, it
was seen that the perception of urban quality of life is based on a series of
objective and subjective variables. Among these variables, the perception of
security and social status gains importance. Findings obtained from the
research and predictions for the future are considered to contribute to the
planning and design of residential areas.

Anahtar Kelimeler

livability quality locality housing Gaziantep

Kaynakça

  • Amérigo, M. & Aragonés, J.I. (1997). A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1):47-57.
  • Ge, J. & Hokao, K. (2006). Research on residential lifestyles in Japanese cities from the viewpoints of residential preference, residential choice and residential satisfaction. Landscape and Urban Plannig, 78(3): 165–178.
  • Clark,W.; Deurloo, M.; Dieleman, F. (2006). Residential mobility and neighbourhood outcomes. Housing Studies. 21(3): 323–342.
  • Clark, W.A.V. (1992). Residential preferences and residential choices in a multiethnic context. Demography, 29(3): 451–466.
  • Clark, W.A.V. (2009). Changing Residential Preferences across Income, Education, and Age: Findings from the
  • Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality. Urban Affairs Review, 44(3): 334–355.
  • Dieleman, F.M.F.M. & Mulder, C.H.C.H. (2002). The geography of residential choice. In Residential environments: choice, satisfaction, and behavior. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey.
  • Dieleman, F.M. (2001). Modelling residential mobility; a review of recent trends in research. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 16: 249-265.
  • Diepen, A.M.L. & Musterd, S. (2009). Lifestyles and the city: Connecting daily life to urbanity. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. 24(3): 331–345.
  • Heijs, W., Carton, M., Smeets, J. & Van Gemert, A. (2009). The labyrinth of life-styles. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24(3): 347–356.
  • Hustad, T.P. & Pessemier, E.A. (2011). The Development and Application of Psychographic Life Style and Associated Activity and Attitude Measures. Marketing Classics Press: Decatur, GA, USA.
  • Jansen, S.J.T. (2011). Lifestyle method. In The Measurement and Analysis of Housing Preference and Choice. Springer: Berlin.
  • Kim, T.K., Horner, M.W. & Marans, R.W. (2005). Life Cycle and Environmental Factors in Selecting Residential and Job Locations. Housing Studies, 20(3): 457–473.
  • Mulder, C.H. (1996). Housing choice: Assumptions and approaches. Netherlands Journal of Housing And The Built Environment. 11 (3): 209–232.
  • Pacione, M. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—A social geographical perspective. Landscape and Urban Plannig, 65, 19–30.
  • Rossi, P.H. (1980). Why FamiliesMove. Sage Publications: CA, USA.
  • Vasanen, A. (2012). Beyond stated and revealed preferences: The relationship between residential preferences and housing choices in the urban region of Turku, Finland. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. 27(3): 301–315.
  • Ge, J. & Hokao, K. (2006). Research on residential lifestyles in Japanese cities from the viewpoints of residential preferences, residential choice and residential satisfaction. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78 (3):165- 178.
  • Kamp, I.V., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G. and Hollander, A. D. (2003) Urban environmental quality and human well-being towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study, Landscape Urban Planning. 65: 5-18.
  • Wells, W.D. (2011). Life Style and Psychographics. Marketing Classics Press: Decatur, GA, USA.
  • Lloyd, K. (2003). Leisure, Public Space and Quality of Life in the Urban. Urban Policy and Research. 21(4): 339–356.
  • Long, P. (1960). On the Quantity and Quality of Life. Medieval Times , 88: 613-619.
  • Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form. Pergamon Press. Newyork.
  • Jansen, S.J.T. (2012). What is the worth of values in guiding residential preferences and choices? Journal of Housing and Built Environment, 27(3):273–300.
  • Jansen, S. J. T. (2011). The lifestyle method. In S. J. T. Jansen, H. C. C. H. Coolen, & R. W. Goetgeluk (Eds.), The measurement and analysis of housing preference and choice (pp. 177–202). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Marshall S. & Banister D. (2007). Land Use and Transport, Elsevier: Amsterdam.
  • McCrea R., Stimson R. and Western J., (2005).Testing a moderated model of satisfaction with urban living using data for Brisbane-South East Queensland, Social Indicators Research, 72 (2):121–152.

Konut ve Konut Yer Seçiminde Etkili Ölçütlerin Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesi Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi; Gaziantep Örneği

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 138 - 146, 28.08.2019

Emine Mazıcıoğlu M. Serhat Yenice

Öz

Bu araştırma Gaziantep kenti
örneğinde yüksek gelir seviyesine sahip konut kullanıcılarının, konut ve konut
bölgesi tercihlerinde etkili olan değişkenleri, kentsel yaşam kalitesi
bağlamında incelenmesi ve yakın gelecekteki mekânsal talep ve beklentilerin
tespit edilmesi üzerine odaklanmaktadır. Araştırmanın kapsamını, Gaziantep
kentinin batı ve kuzeybatısında yer alan, 
genellikle orta ve üst gelirli hane halklarının yer seçtiği Atatürk,
Batıkent ve Güvenevler mahallelerinden oluşan İbrahimli kentsel alt bölgesi
oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma Gaziantep kent merkezinde yüksek gelir grubunun
yoğun olarak bulunduğu bu üç mahalle üzerinde yapılmış olup bu mahallerde
yaşayanların yer seçimini etkileyen temel değişkenler, kentsel yaşam kalitesi
bağlamında irdelemektedir. Araştırma yöntemi konut kullanıcı gruplarının
kentsel yaşam kalitesi ve memnuniyet düzeyine etki eden değişkenlerin tespiti
ve ölçülmesine dayanmaktadır. Araştırma sonucunda kentsel yaşam kalitesi
algısının bir dizi nesnel ve öznel değişkene dayalı olduğu görülmüştür. Bu
değişkenler arasında güvenlik ve sosyal statü algısı da giderek önem
kazanmaktadır. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgular ve geleceğe yönelik
kestirimlerin, konut alanları planlanması ve tasarımı sürecine katkı
sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yaşanabilirlik kalite mekân konut Gaziantep.

Kaynakça

  • Amérigo, M. & Aragonés, J.I. (1997). A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1):47-57.
  • Ge, J. & Hokao, K. (2006). Research on residential lifestyles in Japanese cities from the viewpoints of residential preference, residential choice and residential satisfaction. Landscape and Urban Plannig, 78(3): 165–178.
  • Clark,W.; Deurloo, M.; Dieleman, F. (2006). Residential mobility and neighbourhood outcomes. Housing Studies. 21(3): 323–342.
  • Clark, W.A.V. (1992). Residential preferences and residential choices in a multiethnic context. Demography, 29(3): 451–466.
  • Clark, W.A.V. (2009). Changing Residential Preferences across Income, Education, and Age: Findings from the
  • Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality. Urban Affairs Review, 44(3): 334–355.
  • Dieleman, F.M.F.M. & Mulder, C.H.C.H. (2002). The geography of residential choice. In Residential environments: choice, satisfaction, and behavior. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey.
  • Dieleman, F.M. (2001). Modelling residential mobility; a review of recent trends in research. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 16: 249-265.
  • Diepen, A.M.L. & Musterd, S. (2009). Lifestyles and the city: Connecting daily life to urbanity. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. 24(3): 331–345.
  • Heijs, W., Carton, M., Smeets, J. & Van Gemert, A. (2009). The labyrinth of life-styles. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24(3): 347–356.
  • Hustad, T.P. & Pessemier, E.A. (2011). The Development and Application of Psychographic Life Style and Associated Activity and Attitude Measures. Marketing Classics Press: Decatur, GA, USA.
  • Jansen, S.J.T. (2011). Lifestyle method. In The Measurement and Analysis of Housing Preference and Choice. Springer: Berlin.
  • Kim, T.K., Horner, M.W. & Marans, R.W. (2005). Life Cycle and Environmental Factors in Selecting Residential and Job Locations. Housing Studies, 20(3): 457–473.
  • Mulder, C.H. (1996). Housing choice: Assumptions and approaches. Netherlands Journal of Housing And The Built Environment. 11 (3): 209–232.
  • Pacione, M. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—A social geographical perspective. Landscape and Urban Plannig, 65, 19–30.
  • Rossi, P.H. (1980). Why FamiliesMove. Sage Publications: CA, USA.
  • Vasanen, A. (2012). Beyond stated and revealed preferences: The relationship between residential preferences and housing choices in the urban region of Turku, Finland. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. 27(3): 301–315.
  • Ge, J. & Hokao, K. (2006). Research on residential lifestyles in Japanese cities from the viewpoints of residential preferences, residential choice and residential satisfaction. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78 (3):165- 178.
  • Kamp, I.V., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G. and Hollander, A. D. (2003) Urban environmental quality and human well-being towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study, Landscape Urban Planning. 65: 5-18.
  • Wells, W.D. (2011). Life Style and Psychographics. Marketing Classics Press: Decatur, GA, USA.
  • Lloyd, K. (2003). Leisure, Public Space and Quality of Life in the Urban. Urban Policy and Research. 21(4): 339–356.
  • Long, P. (1960). On the Quantity and Quality of Life. Medieval Times , 88: 613-619.
  • Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form. Pergamon Press. Newyork.
  • Jansen, S.J.T. (2012). What is the worth of values in guiding residential preferences and choices? Journal of Housing and Built Environment, 27(3):273–300.
  • Jansen, S. J. T. (2011). The lifestyle method. In S. J. T. Jansen, H. C. C. H. Coolen, & R. W. Goetgeluk (Eds.), The measurement and analysis of housing preference and choice (pp. 177–202). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Marshall S. & Banister D. (2007). Land Use and Transport, Elsevier: Amsterdam.
  • McCrea R., Stimson R. and Western J., (2005).Testing a moderated model of satisfaction with urban living using data for Brisbane-South East Queensland, Social Indicators Research, 72 (2):121–152.
Toplam 27 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Mimarlık, Kentsel Politika
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Emine Mazıcıoğlu

M. Serhat Yenice 0000-0003-4256-2215

Yayımlanma Tarihi 28 Ağustos 2019
Kabul Tarihi 23 Temmuz 2019
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2019 Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Mazıcıoğlu, E., & Yenice, M. S. (2019). Konut ve Konut Yer Seçiminde Etkili Ölçütlerin Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesi Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi; Gaziantep Örneği. Artium, 7(2), 138-146.
 Kapak Resmi İndir

Artium is an OAJ supported by Hasan Kalyoncu University

Open access articles in Artium are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). 

28842https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/