**3. Results and discussion**

The results illustrate that there is a wide width between the lowest and the highest unit park area ratio of districts.

The spatial distribution of parks has been analyzed according to Istanbul's concentric rings. The core area is taken to be the area stretching 3000 m. from the centre, which corresponds to the old Central Business District (CBD); the first ring is from 3000 m. to 12000 m, which covers the area occupied by the city in the 1950s before heavy rural migration started; the second ring is taken as the peripheral area beyond the first ring (Dökmeci et al., 2007)

While the core area was home to 6% of the total population in 1985, this percentage decreased to 3% in 2000 due to suburbanization and the functional transformation of some of the buildings from residential to business utilization.

A similar trend was observed in the first ring where in 1985 the population ratio of this zone was 51%, decreasing to 30% in 2000. On the other hand, the population ratio of the second ring witnessed a sharp increase from 43% to 67% in 2000. This population increase in the periphery caused the expansion of the city at the expense of the green areas.

The investigation of the spatial distribution of unit park areas per person according to the rings and their growth rates illustrates different patterns (Table 1). While in 1975 the unit park area ratio was 0.8 m²/person in the core area (Eminönü and Beyoğlu), it increased to 3.39 m² in 2004 due to population decrease as a result of suburbanization, the functional transformation from housing to business, and the Municipality's creation of green areas in these districts.

The same ratio was 0.19 m²/person in the first ring in 1975 increasing to1.76 m²/person in 2004. In the second ring, the same ratio was 0.14 m²/person in 1975 and it increased to 0.95 m²/person in 2004 due to provision of green areas in the recent modern housing projects according to the legal requirements in both zones. Thus, during the rapid urbanization process after 1975, park areas increased at a slower pace at the metropolitan level.

A spatial analysis can serve as a starting point for an evaluation of the distribution of green areas with respect to population needs. As (Jim, 2004) has suggested, variations in land use and urban development patterns have generated green areas of different geometry, distribution and composition. To this regard, the quantification of green area patterns is a prerequisite to understanding green area spatial distribution and green area changes overtime. The hypothesis in this study is that education and income have a positive impact on green areas of the districts. Most of the squatter areas have very low unit park ratios due

In order to understand the reasons for different patterns of park distribution in different districts, we must first investigate the interaction between socio-economic and planning forces in different districts as they are already taken into consideration by other studies (Alberti, 1999; Kline, 2006). The spatial distribution of green areas has been investigated in two stages. First, the spatial distribution of unit park area has been investigated over time

The results illustrate that there is a wide width between the lowest and the highest unit park

The spatial distribution of parks has been analyzed according to Istanbul's concentric rings. The core area is taken to be the area stretching 3000 m. from the centre, which corresponds to the old Central Business District (CBD); the first ring is from 3000 m. to 12000 m, which covers the area occupied by the city in the 1950s before heavy rural migration started; the

While the core area was home to 6% of the total population in 1985, this percentage decreased to 3% in 2000 due to suburbanization and the functional transformation of some

A similar trend was observed in the first ring where in 1985 the population ratio of this zone was 51%, decreasing to 30% in 2000. On the other hand, the population ratio of the second ring witnessed a sharp increase from 43% to 67% in 2000. This population increase in the

The investigation of the spatial distribution of unit park areas per person according to the rings and their growth rates illustrates different patterns (Table 1). While in 1975 the unit park area ratio was 0.8 m²/person in the core area (Eminönü and Beyoğlu), it increased to 3.39 m² in 2004 due to population decrease as a result of suburbanization, the functional transformation from housing to business, and the Municipality's creation of green areas in

The same ratio was 0.19 m²/person in the first ring in 1975 increasing to1.76 m²/person in 2004. In the second ring, the same ratio was 0.14 m²/person in 1975 and it increased to 0.95 m²/person in 2004 due to provision of green areas in the recent modern housing projects according to the legal requirements in both zones. Thus, during the rapid urbanization

process after 1975, park areas increased at a slower pace at the metropolitan level.

second ring is taken as the peripheral area beyond the first ring (Dökmeci et al., 2007)

periphery caused the expansion of the city at the expense of the green areas.

to the fact that their development was random and without planning.

according to the districts and concentric zones of the city.

of the buildings from residential to business utilization.

**3. Results and discussion** 

area ratio of districts.

these districts.

At the same time, there was a determined effort to preserve public or private green areas along the shore lines of Bosphorus and the historically world wide famous image of Bosphorus was conserved (Lamartine, 1897). Moreover, during the restructuring process of the 1980s, in order to increase green areas in the existing urban structure, warehouses and manufacturing plants along the Golden Horn shores were relocated and new park areas were created. Also, land was reclaimed from the sea along the Marmara Sea coast and new park areas were created, thus increasing amenities on the shore lines.

The spatial distribution of unit park areas according to the districts between 1995-2004 has been investigated and the results are illustrated in Figure 1. Among the districts, Eminonu has the highest ratio, 10.6 m²/person. This can be explained by the opening of some of the large gardens of the Topkap Palace to public use and the utilization of the Byzantine Hippodrome as a park area, a utilization that actually began in the 1880s as a result of the Westernization movement (Celik, 1993).

Fig. 1. Spatial Distribution of Unit Park Areas Between (1995-2004) in Istanbul

The second highest ratio (5,1 m²/person) belongs to Bakrköy, a district located in the periphery. The fact that it enjoys larger park areas than most of the other districts can be explained by its historical background as a recreation/excursion area of Istanbul during the Ottoman Empire period.

While the majority of squatter districts such as Esenler and Sultanbeyli (0,2 m2/person) and Güngören and Gaziosmanpaşa (0,3 m2/person), have lower park person ratios due to their limited budget to develop park areas there are also exceptions to this, such as Avclar (2, 3 m2/person) and Maltepe (3,1 m2/person). On the other hand, some of the high income districts have lower park person ratios such as Kadköy (1,4 m2/person) and Saryer (1,1 m2/person). At the same time some other districts, such as Silivri and Çatalca, are included in the lowest park per person ratio group due to the fact that they have only recently been included within the boundaries of the expanding Metropolitan area (Table 2).

An Evaluation of Distribution and Quantity of Parks in Istanbul 249

In the analysis, the park area/per person ratio has been taken as a dependent variable and population, distance to the Central Business District (CBD), income and planned

According to the results of the regression analysis the significant values include population figures, the distance to the Central Business District (CBD and whether the district had planned development. However, income per capita has not been found to be significant, despite the expectations that higher income people have more power to influence the municipal governments to provide necessary green areas in their districts according to the legislative requirements. There is actually a negative relationship between the population and the unit park area ratio of the districts which means that as the population increases the unit park area ratio decreases as it is expected due to higher construction pressure in the more populated districts. Also, there is a negative relationship between the unit park ratio and distance to the Central Business District (CBD) for as the distance increases, the unit park area ratio decreases. This can be explained by the existence of large unplanned squatter

There is a positive relationship between the planned area ratio and the unit park area ratio as it is expected that as the planned area ratio increases, unit park area ratio increases also. Thus, restructuring of the squatter areas in the periphery of Istanbul which is currently underway and the creation of new park areas such as in Başakşehir, will not only provide economic benefits to the owners and municipalities but will also help to improve the hygienic and aesthetic conditions by creating new park areas. This expectation has already been supported by previous studies (Bourassa, 1992; Bourassa et al., 2005; Jim and Chen, 2006c). At the same time, improving the participation of all stakeholders and better coordination of planning institutions is crucial for the successful development of green areas

Rapid urbanization and the expansion of Istanbul have caused continual restructuring and changes in land-use at the expense of green areas. Although recent housing projects fulfill

Adjusted R² = 0.645 F=14.655 Sig.=.000

Dependent variable: unit park ratio (m²/ person)

Variables Beta t Sig. (Constant) 2.385 .025 Population -.445 -3.433 .002 Income -.113 -.594 .557 Planning ratio .450 2.761 .010 Distance to the CBD -.473 -3.157 .004

development ratio of the districts have been taken as independent variables.

R² = 0.693

N= 31 districts

Table 3. Regression Results

areas in the periphery of Istanbul.

according to the needs of people.

**4. Conclusions** 


Table 2. Unit Park Area Ratio (m²/person) values according to District

Secondly, a regression analysis has been used to determine the relationships between the unit park area ratio and the demographic, socio-economic and physical characteristics of the districts (Table 3).


Table 3. Regression Results

248 Urban Development

**SURFACE AREA**

**m2/ person** 

**2004 (T.R. Office of Turkish Statistics of the Office of the Prime Minister)** 

**SURFACE AREA** 

**m2/ person** 

**Surface (m2)** 

**POPULATION**

**1975 (State Institute of Statistics)**

Table 2. Unit Park Area Ratio (m²/person) values according to District

Secondly, a regression analysis has been used to determine the relationships between the unit park area ratio and the demographic, socio-economic and physical characteristics of the

**Surface (m2)** 

ADALAR - - - 17806 17710 1 AVCILAR - - - 236885 553.000 2,3 BAĞCILAR - - - 558653 250210 0,4 BAHÇELİEVLER - - - 464903 227.915 0,5 BAKIRKÖY 200942 26200 0,1 192000 972255 5,1 BAYRAMPAŞA - - - 246646 211740 0,9 BEŞİKTAŞ 174931 19360 0,1 190139 501545 2,6 BEYKOZ 76804 13850 0,2 213203 117440 0,6 BEYOĞLU 230532 62000 0,3 235733 401715 1,7 EMİNÖNÜ 122885 237440 1,9 55180 583330 10,6 ESENLER - - - 394423 97290 0,2 EYÜP 95486 6400 0,06 253252 627245 2,5 FATİH 504127 51150 0,1 407991 805525 2 G.O.PAŞA 97118 - - 754790 240670 0,3 GÜNGÖREN - - - 269939 93785 0,3 KADIKÖY 354957 51600 0,1 653000 895160 1,4 KAĞITHANE - - - 344547 213020 0,6 KARTAL - - - 417034 217020 0,5 K. ÇEKMECE - - - 589139 244895 0,4 MALTEPE - - - 356568 1.109.945 3,1 PENDİK - - - 388940 484630 1,2 SARIYER 79329 24000 0,3 241234 259605 1,1 ŞİŞLİ 270577 135800 0,5 270582 473220 1,7 TUZLA - - - 124037 190655 1,5 ÜMRANİYE - - - 626312 463165 0,7 ÜSKÜDAR 202957 60800 0,3 501804 746700 1,5 ZEYTİNBURNU 123548 9150 0,07 241825 383690 1,6 BÜYÜKÇEKMECE - - - 396937 - - ÇATALCA - 82149 13220 0,2 SULTANBEYLİ 175771 42500 0,2 ŞİLE 32923 30000 0,9 SİLİVRİ 107486 2590 0,02 **İSTANBUL 2534193 697750 0,3 10041831 1147139 1,1** 

**POPULATION**

DISTRICT

districts (Table 3).

In the analysis, the park area/per person ratio has been taken as a dependent variable and population, distance to the Central Business District (CBD), income and planned development ratio of the districts have been taken as independent variables.

According to the results of the regression analysis the significant values include population figures, the distance to the Central Business District (CBD and whether the district had planned development. However, income per capita has not been found to be significant, despite the expectations that higher income people have more power to influence the municipal governments to provide necessary green areas in their districts according to the legislative requirements. There is actually a negative relationship between the population and the unit park area ratio of the districts which means that as the population increases the unit park area ratio decreases as it is expected due to higher construction pressure in the more populated districts. Also, there is a negative relationship between the unit park ratio and distance to the Central Business District (CBD) for as the distance increases, the unit park area ratio decreases. This can be explained by the existence of large unplanned squatter areas in the periphery of Istanbul.

There is a positive relationship between the planned area ratio and the unit park area ratio as it is expected that as the planned area ratio increases, unit park area ratio increases also. Thus, restructuring of the squatter areas in the periphery of Istanbul which is currently underway and the creation of new park areas such as in Başakşehir, will not only provide economic benefits to the owners and municipalities but will also help to improve the hygienic and aesthetic conditions by creating new park areas. This expectation has already been supported by previous studies (Bourassa, 1992; Bourassa et al., 2005; Jim and Chen, 2006c). At the same time, improving the participation of all stakeholders and better coordination of planning institutions is crucial for the successful development of green areas according to the needs of people.
