IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i23p6773-d292196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which Natural Areas are Preferred for Recreation? An Investigation of the Most Popular Natural Resting Types for Istanbul

Author

Listed:
  • Meryem Hayir-Kanat

    (Faculty of Education, Yildiz Technical University – Istanbul, Davutpasa Campus, Esenler-Istanbul 34210, Turkey)

  • Jürgen Breuste

    (Department of Geography and Geology, Paris Lodron-University of Salzburg, A5020 Salzburg, Austria)

Abstract

This research focuses on people’s perceptions and expectations from nature and nature experience and their preferences of nature types. One-on-one face-to-face interviews were conducted with 500 respondents using a paper-pencil survey questionnaire. Our results show that the most frequently cited meaning of nature was fresh air and green space. Overall, the majority of the respondents associated the concept of nature with green areas, coasts, and panoramas. The psychological dimension of nature was also mentioned by about one-third of the respondents. The most beloved part of being in nature reported by the respondents was being away from city life and work. The respondents had strong preferences for being near water, primarily by the seaside. It is concluded that, for many people, nature and biological components of nature help with the recovery from work stress and city hassle.

Suggested Citation

  • Meryem Hayir-Kanat & Jürgen Breuste, 2019. "Which Natural Areas are Preferred for Recreation? An Investigation of the Most Popular Natural Resting Types for Istanbul," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:23:p:6773-:d:292196
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/23/6773/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/23/6773/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sugiyama, T. & Francis, J. & Middleton, N.J. & Owen, N. & Giles-CortI, B., 2010. "Associations between recreational walking and attractiveness, size, and proximity of neighborhood open spaces," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 100(9), pages 1752-1757.
    2. Victoria Cramer & Svenn Torgersen & Einar Kringlen, 2004. "Quality of Life in a City: The Effect of Population Density," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 103-116, October.
    3. John V Winters & Yu Li, 2017. "Urbanisation, natural amenities and subjective well-being: Evidence from US counties," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(8), pages 1956-1973, June.
    4. Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R., 2003. "Health, Supportive Environments, and the Reasonable Person Model," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(9), pages 1484-1489.
    5. Omar Fassio & Chiara Rollero & Norma Piccoli, 2013. "Health, Quality of Life and Population Density: A Preliminary Study on “Contextualized” Quality of Life," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 110(2), pages 479-488, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. João Monteiro & Ana Clara Carrilho & Nuno Sousa & Leise Kelli de Oliveira & Eduardo Natividade-Jesus & João Coutinho-Rodrigues, 2023. "Do We Live Where It Is Pleasant? Correlates of Perceived Pleasantness with Socioeconomic Variables," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, April.
    2. Katharina Schley, 2018. "Health care service provision in Europe and regional diversity: a stochastic metafrontier approach," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Talita Greyling & Stephanié Rossouw, 2017. "Non-Economic Quality of Life and Population Density in South Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 134(3), pages 1051-1075, December.
    4. Gonzalo Ríos-Vásquez & Hanns de la Fuente-Mella, 2023. "Mathematical Analysis and Modeling of the Factors That Determine the Quality of Life in the City Councils of Chile," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-31, March.
    5. Besser, Lilah M. & Rodriguez, Daniel A. & McDonald, Noreen & Kukull, Walter A. & Fitzpatrick, Annette L. & Rapp, Stephen R. & Seeman, Teresa, 2018. "Neighborhood built environment and cognition in non-demented older adults: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 27-35.
    6. Meryem Hayir-Kanat & Jürgen Breuste, 2020. "Outdoor Recreation Participation in Istanbul, Turkey: An Investigation of Frequency, Length, Travel Time and Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, January.
    7. Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn & Joan Maya Mazelis, 2018. "Urbanism and happiness: A test of Wirth’s theory of urban life," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(2), pages 349-364, February.
    8. Ferrara, Antonella Rita & Dijkstra, Lewis & McCann, Philip & Nisticó, Rosanna, 2022. "The response of regional well-being to place-based policy interventions," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    9. Dorota Ciołek & Anna Golejewska & Adriana Zabłocka‐Abi Yaghi, 2022. "Innovation drivers in regions. Does urbanization matter?," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 1933-1960, December.
    10. Soo Tan & Siok Tambyah & Ah Kau, 2006. "The Influence of Value Orientations and Demographics on Quality-of-Life Perceptions: Evidence from a National Survey of Singaporeans," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 78(1), pages 33-59, August.
    11. Tomas Hanell, 2022. "Unmet Aspirations and Urban Malaise," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 83-103, November.
    12. Xiaohu Zhang & Scott Melbourne & Chinmoy Sarkar & Alain Chiaradia & Chris Webster, 2020. "Effects of green space on walking: Does size, shape and density matter?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(16), pages 3402-3420, December.
    13. Abdullah Addas & Ahmad Maghrabi, 2021. "Social Evaluation of Public Open Space Services and Their Impact on Well-Being: A Micro-Scale Assessment from a Coastal University," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, April.
    14. Fredrik Carlsen & Stefan Leknes, 2022. "For whom are cities good places to live?," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(12), pages 2177-2190, December.
    15. Lei Kang & Zhaoping Yang & Yunxiao Dang & Wenzhong Zhang & Caicai Liu, 2022. "Can Tourism Development Make Cities More Livable? Investigating 40 Cities in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-17, January.
    16. Zhonghua Gou & Xiaohuan Xie & Yi Lu & Maryam Khoshbakht, 2018. "Quality of Life (QoL) Survey in Hong Kong: Understanding the Importance of Housing Environment and Needs of Residents from Different Housing Sectors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-16, January.
    17. Macdonald, Elizabeth & Harper, Alethea & Williams, Jeff & Hayter, Jason A., 2006. "Street Trees and Intersection Safety," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt4sk6m275, University of California Transportation Center.
    18. Eun Jung Kim & Hyunjung Kim, 2020. "Neighborhood Walkability and Housing Prices: A Correlation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, January.
    19. Karen Maguire & John V. Winters, 0. "Satisfaction and Self-employment: Do Men or Women Benefit More from Being Their Own Boss?," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 0, pages 1-27.
    20. Gustavo Ahumada & Victor Iturra & Mauricio Sarrias, 2020. "We Do Not Have the Same Tastes! Evaluating Individual Heterogeneity in the Preferences for Amenities," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 53-74, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:23:p:6773-:d:292196. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.