The Assessment of the Criteria of Social Infrastructure within the Scope of Women-Friendly City Approach: The Example of Çiğli

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2022.225

Keywords:

Izmir, Social Infrastructure Areas, Urban Planning, Woman-Friendly City

Abstract

The ability to reproduce, liberate and socialize individuals in a city directly depends on the existence of social infrastructure areas and the usability of these areas. Therefore, social infrastructure areas should be open to the use of all citizens and should meet the needs and demands of all citizens. This requirement depends on the consideration of the user profile as well as the conditions in the legislation. In other words, social infrastructure areas should, on the one hand, meet the criteria of distance and size per person as defined in the legislation, and on the other hand, they should be designed with the user profile in mind. Providing these two features means that the social infrastructure areas comply with the criteria of a woman-friendly city with an urban planning approach for everyone. Planning social infrastructure areas according to women-friendly city criteria is one of the basic requirements for the realization of gender equality. Therefore, city planning, as a science and profession, should produce a process and language that considers gender equality within the scope of social reinforcement areas. As long as this cannot be done, social equipment areas will be problem areas that only exist in the city. This article has been prepared in order to develop suggestions for examining and evaluating social infrastructure areas within the scope of the woman-friendly urban planning approach of city planning and producing solutions to the identified problems. The article presents a model that is open to development by proposing new principles on the approach of the women-friendly city to social infrastructure areas in terms of examination, evaluation, and solution proposition. The article aims to contribute to the increase of women-friendly cities and gender equality studies while revealing which data and how social infrastructure areas should be examined according to the legislation and women-friendly city criteria.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biographies

Mercan Efe Güney, Dokuz Eylül University Architecture Faculty

Mercan EFE GÜNEY is a faculty member at Dokuz Eylul University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of City and Regional Planning. She completed her PhD in Ecological Planning. She is working on “women” and “other” subjects. In addition to her undergraduate program at the university, she gives lectures on ecological planning and others at the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences and Social Sciences. She is the coordinator of a project related to a Women Friendly City.

Beste Tuncay, 0000-0003-2250-5344

Beste Tuncay is an urban planner who completed her undergraduate education at Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Architecture.  At the same time, she is studying geographic information systems at Anadolu University. She is interested in transportation plannig, strategy planning and geographic information systems issues. And now, she is a member of a team that works on women-friendly cities.

Sıdal Tanrıverdi, 0000-0001-8638-2182

Sıdal Tanrıverdi is an urban planner who completed her undergraduate education at Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Architecture. She is interested in disaster risk management and protection planning issues and is also improving herself in the field of visual design. And now, she is a member of a team that works on women-friendly cities.

Nurseli Şanlı, 0000-0003-4336-590X

Nurseli Şanlı is an urban planner who completed her undergraduate education at Dokuz Eylül University. She is now doing her Master's in Urban and Regional Planning at Dokuz Eylul University. She participated in Erasmus + Learning Mobility during her master education. She is interested in sustainable spatial planning with her graduate education. She is an expert in sustainability, so she is involved in different projects for the Sustainable Development Goals.

Hacer Akbudak

Hacer Akbudak completed her undergraduate education at Dokuz Eylül University and her graduate education at İzmir Institute of Technology, Department of City and Regional Planning. She is interested in agricultural land conservation policies, rural planning and plan implementation tools with her graduate education. She is currently a member of a team working on women-friendly cities and is doing her internship in Rome, Italy with Erasmus + Internship Mobility..

Filiz Ay, Izmir Institute of Technology

Filiz Ay completed her undergraduate education at Dokuz Eylül University as an urban planner. And now, she is doing her master's degree in City Planning Program at Izmir Institute of Technology. She is interested in geographic information systems (GIS), urban morphology and climate change with her master education. She is currently a member of a team that works on women-friendly cities.

References

Adler, S. & Brenner, J. (1992). Gender and space: Lesbians and gay men in the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 16(1), 24-34.

Akkar, Z. M. (2006). Kentsel dönüșüm üzerine Batı’daki kavramlar, tanımlar, süreçler ve Türkiye. Planlama, 2, 29-38.

Alkan, A. (2012). Şehircilik Çalışmalarının Zayıf Halkası: Cinsiyet. Nermin Abadan Unat’a Armağan - Birkaç Arpa Boyu: 21.Yy.’A Girerken Türkiye’de Feminist Çalışmalar. (Der. S. Sancar). İstanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları.

Andanwerti, Noeratri. (2005). Universal Desain, Sebuah Pendekatan Desain untuk Menjawab Keberagaman, Jakarta: Jurnal Visual. Vol. 8 No. (ISSN 1410-4903).

Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of place. London, England: John Wiley.

Arendt, Hannah, İnsanlık Durumu, (Çev. Bahadır Sina Şener), İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul 1994.

Avrupa Belediyeler ve Bölgeler Konseyi (CEMR), Yerel Yaşamda adın ve Erkek Eşitliği Şartı, 2014. Erişim Adresi: https://www.ccre.org/i mg/uploads/piecesjointe/filename/charte_ egalite_tr.pdf

Baxi, P. (2003). Rape and Delhi’s urban environment [Article]. Retrieved from http://www.indiatogether.org/2003/nov/wom-delhienv. htm.

Baykan, D. (2015). Yerel Yönetimler İçin Kadın Dostu Kent Planlaması ve Tasarım İlkeleri Kitabı. Ankara, Uzerler Matbaacılık.

Benn, S. & Gaus, G. F. (1983). Public and Private in Social Life. London: Croom Helm.

Bernard, J. (1981). The female world. New York: Free Press.

Bialeschki, M. D., & Michener, S. (1994). Re-entering leisure: Transition from the role of motherhood. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(1), 57-74.

Booth, M.L., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Clavisi, O., & Leslie, E. (2000). Social–cognitive and perceived environment influences associated with physical activity in older Australians. Preventive Mediciene, 31(1), 15-22.

Bourdieu, P. (2014). Eril Tahakküm [Masculine Domination]. (B. Yılmaz, Trans.). İstanbul: Bağlam Kitabevi.

Bourdieu, P. (2014). Eril Tahakküm [Masculine Domination]. (B. Yılmaz, Trans.). İstanbul: Bağlam Kitabevi.

Bowman, C. G. (1993). Street harassment and the informal ghettoization of women. Harvard Law Review, 106(3), 517–580.

Buckingham, S. (2010). Examining The Right to The City from Gender Perspective. Cities for All. (Ed. A. Sugranyes, Ve C. Mathivet). Chile: Habitat International Coalition.

Burton, E. & Mitchell, L. (2006). Inclusive Urban Design: Streets for Life. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Byrne, J. & Wolch, J. (2009). Nature, race, and parks: past research and future directions for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography, 743-765.

Cantek, F. Ş., Ulutaş, Ç. Ü., & Çakmak, Ş. (2014). Evin İçindeki Sokak, Sokağın İçindeki Ev: Kamusal İle Özel ‘Ara’sında Kalanlar. Funda Şenol Cantek (Der.), Kenarın Kitabı: ‘Ara’da Kalmak, Çeperde Yaşamak İçinde, 121-159.

Carmona, M. (2010). Contemporary public space: Critique and classification, Part One: Critique. Journal of Urban Design, 15(1), 123-148.

Clarke P, Ailshire JA, & Lantz P. (2009). Urban built environments and trajectories of mobility disability: findings from a national sample of community-dwelling American adults (1986–2001). Social Science and Medicine, 69(6), 964–970.

Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M., & Vanderheiden, G. (1997). Principles of universal design. Raleigh: North Carolina State University, Center for Universal Design.

Çubuk, M. (1991). Kentsel Tasarım Ve Kamu Alanları. Kamu Mekanları Tasarımı Ve Kent Mobilyaları Sempozyumu, 15-16.

Day, K. (2001). `Constructing masculinity and women's fear in public space in Irvine, California'. Gender, Place and Culture, 8(2), 109-128.

Deem, R. (1986). All work and no play? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Demirbaş, G. (2012). Kadınların mekan algısı ve mekanı kullanma biçimleri (Master's thesis, Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü).

Efe Güney, M., Tezcan, S., & Ağın, C. (2020). Being Able to Exist In The City In Defiance Of Planning: An Examination On A Woman-Friendly City İn İzmir–Konak. Journal of Planning, 30(2), 273-293.

Eveline, J., Bacchi, C. (2010). What Are We Mainstreaming When We Mainstream Gender?. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4):496-512.

Fenster, T. (1999). Space for Gender: Cultural Roles of the Forbidden and The Permitted. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 17(2), 227-246.

Firestone, J., and Shelton, B. A. (1988). An estimation of the effects of women’s work on available leisure time. Journal of Family Issues, 9(4), 478–495.

Fisher, B. S. & Nasar, J. L., (1992). Design for vulnerability: Cues and reactions to fear of crime. Sociology and Social Research, 76(2), 48-58.

Fobker, S., & Grotz, R. (2006). Everyday mobility of elderly people in different urban settings: The example of the city of Bonn, Germany. Urban studies, 43(1), 99-118.

Fox, R. L., and Schuhmann, R. A. (2001). Mentoring experiences of women city managers: Are women disadvantaged? The American Review of Public Administration, 31(4), 381–392.

Gardner, C. B. (1995). Passing by: Gender and Public Harassment in Public Space. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Glass T. A. & Balfour J. (2003). Neighborhoods, aging, and functional limitations. In I. K. Berkman, Neighborhoods and Health (pp. 303–334). New York: Oxford University Press.

Glendinning, A., M. Nuttall, L. Hendry, M. Kloep, and S. Wood. (2003). Rural communities and well-being: A good place to grow up? Sociological Review, 51(1), 129–156.

Gökgür, P. (2008). Kentsel mekânda kamusal alanın yeri. Bağlam Yayıncılık.

Gordon, M. T. & Riger, S. (1991). The Female Fear. Gender and Society, 625-629.

Güldal, A. D., Limnili, G., & Çelik, M. (2019). Birinci basamak sağlık hizmetlerinin değerlendirilmesi. The Journal of Turkish Family Physician, 10(4), 163-172.

Gülen, M. (2006). Stratejik planlama yaklaşımı çerçevesinde kentsel projeler-kamusal alan ilişkisi: Büyükdere aksı Levent plazalar alanı örneği (Master's thesis, [yy]).

Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT press.

Hahn, H. (1986). Disability and the Urban Environment: A Perspective on Los Angeles. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 273-288.

Hale, S. (1996). The New Muslim Woman:'Sudan's national Islamic front and... The Muslim World, 86(2), 176-199.

Hénaff, M., & Strong, T. B. (Eds.). (2001). Public space and democracy. U of Minnesota Press.

Henderson, K.A., Hodges, S., & Kivel, B. D. (2002). Context and dialogue in research on women and leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(3), 253-271.

Hutchinson, R. (1994). Women and the elderly in Chicago's public parks. Leisure Sciences, 229-247.

Hutchison, R. (2009). Constructions of urban space. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishers.

Jackson, P. (1987). Race and Racism: Essays in Social Geography. London: Allen and Unwin.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books.

Kaczynski, A. T., & Henderson, K. A. (2008). Parks and recreation settings and active living: A review of associations with physical activity function and intensity. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 5(4), 619-632.

Kadıoğlu, B., and Toy, S. (2021). Kentsel Mekânlarda Kadın Davranışlarının Güvenlik Kapsamında Değerlendirilmesi: Erzurum Kenti Muratpaşa Mahallesi Örneği. Kent Akademisi, 14(3), 789-810.

Kaypak, Ş (2016). İnsanlar İçin Kente Bakış; Dost Kentler. 2. Uluslararası Çin’den Adriyatik’e Sosyal Bilimler Kongresi (5-7 Mayıs 2016) Kongre Kitabı. Uluslararası İlişkiler - Kamu Yönetimi– Hukuk Özel Sayısı. Ed. Ragıp Pehlivanlı, Selçuk Demirkılınç. s.134-146. İKSAD Yayını, Adıyaman.

Kaypak, Ş. (2014). Toplumsal Cinsiyet Bakış Açısından Kente Bakmak, Niğde Üniversitesi İibf Dergisi, 7(1), 344-357.

Keleş, R. (1990). Kentleşme politikası (Vol. 13). İmge Kitabevi.

Kelly, J. R. & Ross, J. (1989). Later‐life leisure: Beginning a new agenda. Leisure Sciences, 47–57.

Kennedyl, W. & Silverman, R. A. (1985). Significant others and fear of crime among the elderly. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 20(4), 241-256

Kohn, M. (2004). Brave New Neighborhoods: The Privatization of Public Space. New York: Routledge.

Krenichyn, K. (2003). Women and physical activity in an urban park: Enrichment and support through an ethic of care. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 117-130.

KSGM (2008). T.C. Başbakanlık Kadın Statüsü Genel Müdürlüğü, Toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği ulusal eylem planı 2008-2013, Ankara: Fersa Baskı..

Larson, R., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across cultural settings of the world: Work, play and develop mental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 701-736.

Letherby, G. (2003). Feminist Research in Theory and in Practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Low, S., Taplin, D. & Scheld, S. (2005). Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space and Cultural Diversity. Austin: University of Texas Press

Mace, R. (1997). The Principles of Universal Design formulated by The Centre of Universal Design, North Carolina State University.

Mackinnon, Catharina A. Feminismus, Marxismus, Methode und der Staat: Ein Theorieprogramm, in: Elisabeth List / Herlinde Studer (Hg.) , Denkverhältnisse: Feminismus und Kritik, Frankfurt 1989, s. 86-132.

Markson, E., & Hess, B. (1980). Older women in the city. In C. R. al., Women and the American city (pp. 124-140). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McDowell, L. (1999). Gender, Identity and Place: Understanding Feminist Geographies. Minneapolis: Minnesota Press.

Mekansal Planlar Yapım Yönetmeliği (Spatial Plans Design Regulation), 14.06.2014 tarih ve 29030 sayılı Resmi Gazete.

Moser, C. (2012). Mainstreaming Women’s Safety in Cities into Gender-Based Policy and Programmes. Gender & Development, 20(3), 435–452. doi: 10.1080/13552074.2012.731742.

Newman, O. (1996). Creating Defensible Space. Washington: Rutgers University.

Özdemir, A. (2009). KATILIMCI KENTLİ KİMLİĞİNİN OLUŞUMUNDA KAMUSAL YEŞİL ALANLARIN ROLÜ: ANKARA KENT PARKLARI ÖRNEĞİ. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 10(1), 144-153.

Painter, K. (1996). The influence of street lighting improvements on crime, fear and pedestrian street use, after dark. Landscape and urban planning, 35(2-3), 193-201.

Park, Y., & Garcia, M. (2020). Pedestrian safety perception and urban street settings. International journal of sustainable transportation, 14(11), 860-871.

Patterson, P. K. & Chapman, N. J. (2004). Urban form and older residents׳ service use, walking, driving, quality of life, and neighborhood satisfaction. Americam Journal of Health Promotion, 19(1), 45-82.

Schmidt, S. & Nemeth, J. (2012). Space, place and the city: Emerging research on public space design and planning. Journal of Urban Design, 15 (4), 453-457.

Sewell, J. E. (2011). Women and the everyday city: Public space in San Francisco, 1890-1915. U of Minnesota Press.

Silver, C. (2000). Being there: The time dual-earner couples spend with their children. Canadian Social Trends, 57, 26-29.

Sister, C., Wolch, J. & Wilson, J. (2010). Got green? addressing environmental justice in park. GeoJournal, 75, 229-248.

Spain, D. (2014). Gender and urban space. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 581–598.

Steinfeld, E. (2001). Universal design in mass transportation. Universal Design Handbook. New York: McGraw Hill.

Story, M. F. (2001). Principles of universal design. Universal design handbook.

Tekinbaş, E. (2015). Kadın Dostu Kent Uygulama Rehberi. 20 Mart 2019, http://kader.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/kdk-uygulama-rehberi.pdf.

Thomas, S. (1991). The impact of women on state legislative policies. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 958-976.

Tinsley, H., Tinsley, D. and Croskeys, C. (2002). Park usage, social milieu, and psychological benefits of park use reported by older urban park users from four ethnic roups. Leisure Sciences, 24(2), 199-218.

UN Habitat. (2005). World Charter for The Right To The City. Erişim Adresi: Http://Www.Urbanreinventors.Net/3/Wsf.Pdf

United Nations. (2012). Gender Issue Guide- Urban Planning and Design. Nairobi: Un Habitat.

United Nations-Habitat. (2013). State of Women in Cities 2012-2013: Gender and The Prosperity of Cities. Nairobi, Kenya: UN.

Valdemarsson, M., Jernryd, E., & Iwarsson, S. (2005). Preferences and frequencies of visits to public facilities in old age—a pilot study in a Swedish town center. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics, 40(1), 15-28.

Valentine, G. (1990). Women’s fear and the design of public space. Built Environment, 16(4), 288–303.

Varna, G., & Tiesdell, S. (2010). Assessing the publicness of public space: The star model of publicness. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 575-598.

Wearing, B., and Wearing, S. (1988). “All in a day’s leisure”: Gender and the concept of leisure. Leisure Studies, 7(2), 111–123

Woodward, D., Green, E., & Hebron, S. (1988). The Sheffield study of gender and leisure: Its methodological approach. Leisure Studies, 7(1), 95-101.

Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.

Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Downloads

Published

20-12-2022

How to Cite

Efe Güney, M., Tuncay, B., Tanrıverdi, S., Şanlı, N., Akbudak, H., & Ay, F. (2022). The Assessment of the Criteria of Social Infrastructure within the Scope of Women-Friendly City Approach: The Example of Çiğli. ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning, 10(2), 800–843. https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2022.225

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 2 (2022)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2022 ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning

Creative Commons License

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.