An Overview of Quality of Urban Life in Konya (Turkey) from the Perspectives of Experts via Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2021.174Keywords:
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Konya, Liveability, quality of urban life, quality of urban life assessmentAbstract
Purpose
This study mainly aims to evaluate comparatively the Quality of Urban Life (QoUL) in Konya city on the basis of Karatay, Meram and Selçuklu districts from the perspectives of two expert groups and to show the suitability of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology for QoUL Assessment.
Design/Methodology/Approach
In the scope of the study, AHP has been utilized to explore the importance weights of each and overall performances of QoUL criteria in the hierarchy in terms of 19 sub-criteria of 5 criteria groups of "Environmental Quality, Physical Quality, Functional Quality, Safer Places, and Social Connection and Interaction at Micro and Macro Environment" from the perspectives of local authority experts and academicians.
Findings
The expert groups have determined different priority weights on the basis of the criteria groups and sub-criteria, and also each district have different criteria performance scores separately. However, the multi-criteria district-based overall QoUL priority rankings of both expert groups are same with different weight rates. Meram is the district with the highest quality of life (QoL), while Karatay is the district with the lowest QoL from the perspective of expert groups.
Research Limitations/Implications
The outputs of the methodology contribute to a better understanding of comparative QoUL performances of three districts via comparing each of them in terms of each QoUL criteria from the perspectives of experts for decision-makers. However, the lack of inhabitant opinions of the city for an overall participatory QoUL assessment is the limitation of the study. Thus, studies focusing on inhabitants’’ views have potential to valuable contribution to further researches and urban planning & design applications.
Social/Practical Implications
In practice, the manuscript has potential to guide local government units and other relevant stakeholders regarding with appropriate actions and transformations to increase the QoUL and create urban areas with high QoUL. The widespread use of the proposed QoUL assessment methodology, which is adaptable for other cities to a significant QoUL evaluation, can lead to a better participatory planning process and finally more qualified urban environments thus can enhance QoUL.
Originality/Value
The study presents a rational and adaptive QoUL assessment approach for local authorities, relevant occupation disciplines and researchers who aim to enhance QoUL.
Metrics
References
Allen, N.M. (2016). Quality of urban life and intensification: Understanding housing choices, trade-offs, and the role of urban amenities [Doctoral Thesis, University of Auckland].
Antognelli S, Vizzari M., (2016). LISAM: an open source GIS-based model for liveability spatial assessment. PeerJ Preprints 4:e2133v2. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2133v2
Architects Council of Europe-ACE. (2019). Achieving quality in the built environment. https://www.ace-cae.eu/fileadmin/New_Upload/_15_ EU_Project/Creative_Europe/Conference_Quality_2019/Inn_Stat_EN_FINAL.pdf
Ataseven, A., & Bakış, Ç. (2018). Türkiye'de sosyal uyum. İstanbul Politikalar Merkezi. http://ingev.org/raporlar/SosyalUyumRaporu.pdf
Atkins, P., Marson, R., & Brann, B. (2015). State of Australian cities 2014-2015 progress in Australian regions. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/pab/soac/files/2015_SoAC_full_report.pdf
Beck, H. (2009). Linking the quality of public spaces to quality of life. Journal of Place Management & Development, 2(3), 240¬¬¬¬¬¬¬−248.
Carmona, M. (2019). Place value: place quality & its impact on health, social, economic & environmental outcomes. Journal of Urban Design, 24(1), 1−48. DOI:10.1080/13574809.2018.1472523
Chen, Z. (2020). Evaluating sustainable liveable city via multi-MCDM and Hopfield neural network. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2020, 1−11. DOI: 10.1155/2020/4189527
Choon, S.W., Siwar, C., Pereira, J.J., Jemain, A.A., Hashim H.S., & Hadi, A.S. (2011). A sustainable city index for Malaysia. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 18(1), 28−35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2011.543012
Delsante, I. (2016). Urban environment quality assessment using a methodology and set of indicators for medium-density neighbourhoods: a comparative case study of Lodi & Genoa. Ambiente Construido, Porto Alegre, 16(3), 7−22.
Dempsey, N. (2008). Quality of the built environment in urban neighbourhoods. Planning Practice and Research, 23(2), 249−264.
Din, H.S.E., Shalaby, A., Farouh H. E., & Elariane, S.A. (2013). Principles of urban quality of life for a neighborhood. HBRC Journal, 9(1), 86−92. DOI: 10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.02.007
Dissanayake, D., Morimoto, T., Murayama, Y., Ranagalage, M., & Perera, E. (2020). Analysis of life quality in a tropical mountain city using a multi-criteria geospatial technique: A case study of Kandy City, Sri Lanka. Sustainability, 12(7), 2918. doi:10.3390/su12072918
Ganebnykh, E., Burtseva, T., Mironova, N., & Feoktistova O. (2019, August 09). Quality assessment of urban environment [Paper presentation]. E3S Web of Conferences SPbWOSCE-2018 Business Technologies for Sustainable Urban Development, 110, St. Petersburg, Russia. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/201911001077
Güleç Solak, S. (2017). Mekân-Kimlik Etkileşimi: Kavramsal ve Kuramsal Bir Bakış. Manas Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(1), 13−37.
Harker, P.T., & Vargas, L.G. (1987). The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty's analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 33(11), 1383−1403.
Hollar, D. (2003). A holistic theoretical model for examining welfare reform: Quality of life. Public Administration Review, 63(1), 90−104.
Hoşgör, H., Söyük, S., & Önder, E. (2016). İdari ve akademik personelin iş yaşam kalitesine etki eden faktörlerin öncelik sırasının belirlenmesi: Bir analitik hiyerarşi prosesi uygulaması. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 31, 302−323.
Hsueh, S-L., & Lin, Y-J. (2018). Critical success factors of the urban environmental quality. Ekoloji, 27(106), 217−222.
İnceoğlu, M., & Aytuğ, A. (2009). Kentsel mekânda kalite kavramı. Megaron, 4(3), 131−146.
Karakayacı, Z. & Karakayacı, Ö. (2019). Determination of urban sprawl effects on farmlands value using GIS. ICONARP International Journal of Architecture & Planning, 7(2), 513-539.
Krishnan, S.V., & Firoz, M.C. (2020). Regional urban environmental quality assessment & spatial analysis. Journal of Urban Management, 9(2), 191−204.
Leby, J.L., & Hashim, A.H. (2010). Liveability dimensions & attributes: Their relative importance in the eyes of neighbourhood residents. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 15(1), 67–91.
Lombardi, P., Giordano, S., Farouh, H., & Yousef, W. (2012). Modelling the smart city performance. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25(2), 137−149. DOI: 10.1080/13511610.2012.660325
Lotfi, S., & Solaimani, K. (2009). An assessment of urban quality of life by using analytic hierarchy process approach (case study: comparative study of quality of life in the north of Iran). Journal of Social Sciences 5(2), 123−133.
Lowe, M., Whitzman, C., Badland, H., Davern, M., Hes, D., Aye, L., Butterworth, I., & Giles-Corti, B. (2013). Liveable, healthy, sustainable: What are the key indicators for Melbourne neighbourhoods? (Research Paper 1). University of Melbourne, Place, Health & Liveability Research Program. https://communityindicators.net/resources/liveable-healthy-sustainable-what-are-the-key-indicators-for-melbourne-neighbourhood s/
MacLean, L., & Salama, A. M. (2019). Towards a context specific and multidimensional quality of urban life model. Open House International, 44(1), 25−33.
Mangır, F. (2016). “Smart city” strategies for local governments: The case of Konya in Turkey. Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 19 (41. yıl özel sayısı), 17−36.
Marans R.W., & Stimson R. (2011). An overview of quality of urban life. In: R. Marans, R. Stimson (eds), Investigating Quality of Urban Life: Social Indicators Research Series Vol 45 (pp.1−29). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1742-8_1
Marans, R.W. (2012). Quality of urban life studies: An overview and implications for environment-behaviour research. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35, 9−22.
McCrea, R., Stimson, R., & Western, J. (2005). Testing a moderated model of satisfaction with urban living using data for Brisbane-South East Queensland, Australia. Social Indicators Research, 72(2), 121−152.
McCrea, R., Marans, R.W., Stimson, R., & Western, J. (2011). Subjective Measurement of quality of life using primary data collection and the analysis of survey data. In: R. Marans, R. Stimson (eds), Investigating Quality of Urban Life: Social Indicators Research Series Vol 45 (pp. 55−75). Springer.
Merschdorf, H. (2014). Quality of urban life: A GIS-based analysis of the subjective and objective quality of urban life in Salzburg, Austria. AV Akademikerverlag.
Mevlana Kalkınma Ajansı-MEVKA. (2019). Konya-Karaman sosyoekonomik görünüm, Konya. https://www.mevka.org.tr/Yukle me/Uploads/DsyCxZprj413202091213PM.pdf
Michalos A.C. (eds) (2014). Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Springer.
Mohit, M.A. (2014). Present trends and future directions of quality-of-life. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 153, 655−665.
Mousavi, S.M. (2013). Livability in historic urban quarters case study: Walled city of Famagusta [Master Thesis, Northern Cyprus Eastern Mediterranean University].
Murgaš, F., & Klobučník, M. (2018). Quality of life in the city, quality of urban life or well-being in the city: Conceptualization and case study. Ekológia (Bratislava), 37(2), 183−200.
Onnom, W., Tripathi, N., Nitivattananon, V., & Ninsawat, S. (2018). Development of a liveable city index (LCI) using multi criteria geospatial modelling for medium class cities in developing countries. Sustainability, 10, 520.
Özden, P.P. (2010). Kentsel yenilemenin unutulan öğesi: Toplumsal yenilenme, In Ö. Uğurlu, N.Ş. Pınarcıklıoğlu, A. Kanbak, & M. Şiriner (Eds.), Türkiye perspektifinden kent sosyolojisi çalışmaları (pp. 267−308). Örgün Yayınevi.
Pacione, M. (2003). Quality-of-life research in urban geography. Urban Geography, 24(4), 314−339. DOI: 10.2747/0272-3638.24.4.314
Papachristou, I., & Rosas-Casals, M. (2015, Jun 29−Jul 01). An integrative methodology for the quality of life measurement in urban places based on the accomplishment of human needs [Paper presentation]. UN-Habitat Future of Places III Conference, Stockholm, Sweden. http://hdl.handle.net/2117/83018
Parkinson, M., Champion, T., Simmie, J., Turok, I., Crookston, M., Yeang, L.D., Katz, B., Park, A., Berube, A., Coombes, M.,Dorling, D., Evans, R., Glass, N., Hutchins, M., Kearns, A., Martin, R., & Wood, P. (2006). State of the English cities: A research study (Volume 1). Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). ISBN: 10 1-851128-45-X, 13 978185112845-7. London.
Psatha, E., Deffner, A., & Psycharis, Y. (2011). Defining the quality of urban life: Which factors should be considered? [Paper presentation]. European Regional Science Association 51st European Congress, Barcelona, Spain. https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa11p785.html
Rezvani, M., Mansourian, H., & Sattari, M. (2013). Evaluating quality of life in urban areas (case study: Noorabad city, Iran). Social Indicators Research, 112(1), 203−220.
Saaty, T.L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
Saaty, T.L. (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational Research, 145 (1): 85−91.
Saaty, T.L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences. 1(1), 83−98.
Salihoğlu, T. (2012). Kentsel yaşam kalitesi araştırmaları. In M. Ersoy (Ed.), Kentsel Planlama Ansiklopedik Sözlük (pp. 264−266). Ninova Yayıncılık.
Salihoğlu T. (2016). Kentsel yaşam kalitesinin yükseltilmesinde boş zaman aktivitelerinin rolü: İstanbul örneği [Doctoral Thesis, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi].
Salihoğlu, T., & Türkoğlu, H. (2019). Konut çevresi ve kentsel yaşam kalitesi. Megaron, 14(Suppl. 1), 203−217. DOI: 10.5505/MEGARON.2018.06977
Sarı, V.İ., & Kındap, A. (2018). Türkiye’de kentsel yaşam kalitesi göstergelerinin analizi. Sayıştay Dergisi,108, 39−72.
Serdaroğlu Sağ, N. (2021). Assessment of urban development pattern and urban sprawl using Shannon’s entropy: A case study of Konya (Turkey). Journal of Human Sciences, 18(2), 252-265. doi:10.14687/jhs.v18i2.6158
Shamsuddin, S., & Abu Hassan, N.R. (2013). Liveability of Kuala Lumpur city centre from the perspective of urban design quality. In S.S., Zubir & C.A. Brebbia (Eds.), WIT Transactions on Ecology & The Environment, Vol 179, The Sustainable City VIII (Volume 2) (pp. 1261−1270). WIT Press. doi:10.2495/SC131072
Silva, L.T., & Mendes, J.F.G. (2012). City noise-air: An environmental quality index for cities. Sustainable Cities & Society, 4, 1−11.
Sitorus, F., Cilliers, J.J., & Brito-Parada, P.R. (2019). Multi-criteria decision making for the choice problem in mining and mineral processing: Applications and trends. Expert Systems with Applications, 121, 393−417.
Stimson R., & Marans R.W. (2011). Objective measurement of quality of life using secondary data analysis. In: R. Marans, R. Stimson (eds), Investigating Quality of Urban Life: Social Indicators Research Series Vol 45 (pp. 33−53). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1742-8_2
T.C. Kalkınma Bakanlığı / Turkish Republic, Ministry of Development. (2018). On birinci kalkınma planı (2019-2023) kentsel yaşam kalitesi özel ihtisas komisyonu raporu (Yayın No: KB: 3014-ÖİK: 795). Ankara.
Tapsuwan, S., Mathot, C., Walker, I., & Barnett, G. (2018). Preferences for sustainable, liveable and resilient neighbourhoods and homes: A case of Canberra, Australia. Sustainable Cities and Society, 37, 133−145.
Tekeli, İ., Güler, C., Vaizoğlu, S., Algan, N., & Kaya Dündar, A. (2004). Yaşam kalitesi göstergeleri: Türkiye için bir veri sistemi önerisi (TÜBA Raporları No:6). Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi. Ankara.
Turan, C., & Erdönmez Dinçer, E. (2017). Kamusal alan okumaları Berlin Potsdamer Platz / Pariser Platz örnekleri. In E. Erdönmez Dinçer, & A. Atmaca Can (Eds.), Kamusal alan okumalari: Esenler (Yayın No: 13) (pp. 41−63). Esenler Belediyesi Şehir Düşünce Merkezi Şehir Yayınları. İstanbul.
Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu / Turkish Statistical Institute-TSI. (2015). İllerde yaşam endeksi il sıralamaları ve endeks değerleri. http://tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1106
Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu /Turkish Statistical Institute-TSI. (2019). Adrese dayalı nüfus kayıt sistemi sonuçları/Address Based Population Registration System. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/
Türkoğlu, H., Bölen, F., Baran, K.P., & Robert Marans, R. (2006, July 2−5). Measuring quality of urban life: findings from Istanbul metropolitan study [Paper presentation]. ENHR conference Housing in an expanding Europe: theory, policy, participation and implementation, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2−5 July 2006
Türkoğlu, H.D., Bölen, F., Baran, P. K., & Marans, R. W. (2008). İstanbul’da yaşam kalitesinin ölçülmesi. itüdergisi/a mimarlık, planlama, tasarım, 7(2), 103−113.
Włodarczyk, K. (2015). Quality of urban life in Poland. Journal of International Studies, 8(2), 155−163.
World Health Organization-WHO. (2020, August 15). WHOQOL: Measuring quality of life. https://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey /whoqol-qualityoflife/en/
Yacan, İ. (2016). Eğitim kalitesinin belirlenmesinde etkili olan faktörlerin bulanık AHP ve bulanık TOPSİS yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi [Master Thesis, Pamukkale Üniversitesi]
Yavuz, F. (2017). Konya kentinde kentsel yaşam kalitesine ilişkin uzman görüşlerinin incelenmesi. In II. International Academic Research Congress Abstracts Book (INES 2017, 18-21 October 2017, Alanya, Antalya), E. Hamarta, C. Arslan, S. Çiftçi, S. Avşaroğlu, O. Köksal, M. Uslu (Eds.) (pp. 566). ISBN: 978-605-196-092-0. Çizgi Kitabevi. Konya. http://www.cizgikitabevi.com/kitap/726-ines-abstracts-book
Yavuz, F. (2021). Urban sprawl: An empirical analysis for Konya Province Turkey. A|Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 18(1), 79–97, doi: 10.5505/itujfa.2020.04834
Yeang, L.D. (2006). Quality of place: The north’s residential offer; Leeds city region. Llewelyn Davies Yeang Architecture Planning Design.
Yıldız, A, Ayyıldız, E, Taşkın Gümüş, A., & Özkan, C. (2019). Ülkelerin yaşam kalitelerine göre değerlendirilmesi için hibrit pisagor bulanik ahp-topsis metodolojisi: Avrupa Birliği Örneği. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 17, 1383−1391. DOI: 10.31590/ejosat.658021
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
COPYRIGHT POLICY
1. The International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) open access articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license lets the author to share (copy and redistribute) his/her article in any medium or format.
2. ICONARP cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
The author must give appropriate credit, provide a link to ICONARP, and indicate if changes were made on the article. The author may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the ICONARP endorses the author or his/her use.
The author may not use the article for commercial purposes.
If the author remix, transform, or build upon the article, s/he may not distribute the modified material.
The author may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues.
The author may use the Article within his/her employer’s institution or company for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs.
3. The author authorizes the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) to exclusively publish online his/her Article, and to post his/her biography at the end of the article, and to use the articles.
4. The author agrees to the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) using any images from the Article on the cover of the Journal, and in any marketing material.
5. As the author, copyright in the Article remains in his/her name.
6. All papers should be submitted electronically. All submitted manuscripts must be original work that is not under submission at another journal or under consideration for publication in another form, such as a monograph or chapter of a book. Authors of submitted papers are obligated not to submit their paper for publication elsewhere until an editorial decision is rendered on their submission. Further, authors of accepted papers are prohibited from publishing the results in other publications that appear before the paper is published in the Journal.
ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning is an OAJ supported by 