KUJES 7(2):100-113, 2021

Adequacy and Accessibility Analysis of Open and Green Spaces in Osmaniye

Center
Deniz Çolakkadıoğlu*, a, Barış Kahvecib, Sezen Savran Penbecioğluc
a
Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design, Faculty of Architecture, Design and Fine Arts,
Osmaniye Korkut Ata University, Turkey
e-mail: [email protected]
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-2946-2036
b
Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Niğde Ömer HalisDemir University, Turkey
e-mail: [email protected]
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-8508-1748
c
Department of City and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture, Design and Fine Arts, Osmaniye Korkut Ata
University, Turkey
e-mail: [email protected]
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9995-8769
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
RESEARCH ARTICLE The scarcity of open and green spaces, which should be an integral part of the urban fabric
Received: July: 26.2021 and urban planning, is not a big metropolitan city problem in Turkey anymore but is a
Reviewed: September: 17.2021 challenging problem of even medium and small-sized cities, one of which is the Osmaniye
Accepted: November: 23.2021
city today. This study examined the neighborhood-level quantitative adequacy and
Keywords: accessibility of the current and future open and green spaces in Osmaniye city center. The
Accessibility,
Adequacy,
analyses were performed using ArcGIS 10.0 software following the Spatial Plans
Open and green spaces, Construction Regulation. Accordingly, it was found that there were 48 open and green
Osmaniye City, spaces with an area of 278566.33 m2 in the Osmaniye city center, which had 1.15 m2 open
Urban planning. and green spaces per person. It was concluded that no neighborhood had enough open and
Corresponding Author: green space. Children playgrounds were the fewest open and green spaces in the research
*
E-mail: [email protected] area, and more than half of Osmaniye city center lacked access to children playground.
Therefore, suggestions were made to solve the open and green spaces' unavailability and
access problems in neighborhoods considering the study results.
ÖZ
Anahtar Kelimeler: Kentsel dokunun ve kent planlamasının vazgeçilmez unsuru olması gereken açık ve yeşil
Erişebilirlik, alanların yetersizliği, ülkemizde sadece büyük metropol kentlerin sorunu olmaktan çıkıp
Yeterlilik, günümüzde orta ve küçük ölçekli kentlerde bile hissedilir hale gelmiştir. Bu kentlerden biri
Açık ve yeşil alanlar,
de Osmaniye kentidir. Bu çalışmada Osmaniye kent merkezindeki mevcut ve planlanan açık
Osmaniye kenti,
Kentsel planlama. yeşil alanların mahalle düzeyinde nicel yeterliliği ve erişilebilirliği analiz edilmiştir.
Analizler ArcGIS 10.0 bilgisayar yazılımı kullanarak Mekansal Planlar Yapım
Yönetmeliği’ndeki sınıflandırmaya göre gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonucunda
Osmaniye kent merkezinde 278566.33m2’lik alana sahip 48 adet açık ve yeşil alan olduğu ve
kişi başına 1.15 m2 açık yeşil alan düştüğü belirlenmiştir. Mahalleler düzeyinde ise hiçbir
mahallenin yeterli açık ve yeşil alana sahip olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Araştırma alanında
erişim yoksunluğu en fazla olan açık yeşil alan sınıfı çocuk parklarıdır. Osmaniye kent
merkezinin yarısından fazlasının çocuk parkı erişiminden yoksun olduğu saptanmıştır. Bu
kapsamda çalışmanın sonucunda açık ve yeşil alan yoksunluğu ve erişim sorunu yaşanan
mahalleler için öneriler geliştirilmiştir.

100
 Çolakkadıoğlu et al. 7(2):100-113, 2021

1. Introduction
In the late 18th century, the Industrial Revolution led to massive population movements from rural areas to industrial
zones around small urban centers. During this period, the requirements for housing, recreation, infrastructure, and
transportation systems increased, which created modern urban planning [1]. It can be suggested that the initial attempt
of modern urban planning was to balance between the buildings and open and green spaces in cities. However, open and
green spaces have been neglected in the urban planning of the countries that could not effectively integrate
environmental policies into other sectoral policies. As Gül and Küçük (2001) stated, the identity of a city is not defined
only by its urban composition but also by the relations between the architectural structures and open and green spaces
[2]. In this sense, urban open and green spaces are critical for providing urban comfort with ecological, economic, and
social functions.
Ecologically, open and green spaces reduce air and noise pollution, contribute to the treatment of ground and surface
waters, prevent floods by controlling the surface flow and heat islands, which is one of the most critical problems in
urban areas, by tempering the climate [3-5]. Economically, open and green spaces are tourist attractions that contribute
to investment and employment opportunities in cities and increase land values [6-9]. They also provide several social
benefits to the residents of densely built and populated urban areas detached from nature. They contribute to urban
residents' social and cultural development and health by offering recreational grounds and sports facilities with aesthetic
values [6, 8, 10]. According to Manavoğlu and Ortaçeşme (2015), open and green spaces also ensure a balanced
integration and organization of all other spatial units regarding occupancy and land use in cities [11]. In urban planning,
the qualitative and quantitative parameters such as the number, size, accessibility, distribution, and equipment should be
considered to take advantage of open and green spaces for the urban ecosystem [11, 12]. Each country establishes open
and green space systems following its urban planning legislation and administrative procedures.
The primary urban planning legislation in Turkey is the development plan law. The open and green spaces in the
laws and regulations are determined per person (m2). The legislation on the use of open and green spaces has not
changed in the Spatial Plans Construction Regulation, published in the Official Gazette of 14.06.2014 (No: 29030), and
is still in force. Accordingly, the amount of open and green space per person is a minimum of 10 m2. Annex-2 of the
regulation has been amended with the regulation published in the Official Gazette of 17.05.2017 (No: 30069).
The amendment was about the classification of open and green spaces and the area per person. In cities as level of
district the child playground, park, square, sports field, botanical park, and recreational grounds should be planned 10
m2/per person. Addition to this amount 5 m2/per person zoo, urban forest, afforested area, hippodrome, and fair and
festival areas should be planned in city level. However, many studies show that the open and green spaces in cities are
below the standard in Turkey [11-21].
The scarcity of open and green spaces, which should be an integral part of the urban fabric and urban planning, is
not a big metropolitan city problem in Turkey anymore but is a challenging problem of even medium and small-sized
cities. As the 80th province of Turkey, Osmaniye is one of those cities. Osmaniye was one of the districts of Adana until
it became a province in 1996, which was a breaking point in population growth and city planning of Osmaniye. Multi-
story residences have replaced single or double-story detached houses with gardens. The increasing population has
highlighted the need for open and green spaces.
Nevertheless, as Ergan (2011) stated, a decline in open and green spaces has been observed in Osmaniye province
since the zoning plan of 1987 [16]. Especially the precedent principle adopted in 2017 has worsened this problem. The
precedent principle refers that as the parcel area increases, the construction rights such as precedent and maximum
height expand, and theoretically aims to control the balance between open spaces and housing by allowing the houses
with gardens. However, in practical terms, it has created densely built and populated areas. This situation has led to a
decline in the amount and quality of open and green spaces per person, especially in the city center. The precedent
principle, which has been in force since 2017, has required the re-organization of the open and green spaces in
Osmaniye.
According to the current legal regulations, this study aimed to evaluate the size, per capita amount, neighborhood-
level distribution, and accessibility of open and green spaces in Osmaniye city center. The open and green spaces in the
development plans were also discussed in the study, and necessary suggestions were made accordingly.

101
 Çolakkadıoğlu et al. 7(2):100-113, 2021

2. Material and Method

The central district of Osmaniye was the primary study area. Located in the east of the Mediterranean Region,
Osmaniye is on the transition road between the east and west of Turkey. The Central Taurus Mountains surround
Osmaniye from west to north and the Amanos Mountains from east to southeast. Osmaniye is the neighbor of
Gaziantep in the east, Hatay in the south, Adana in the west, and Kahramanmaraş in the north. It has seven districts:
Bahçe, Düziçi, Hasanbeyli, Kadirli, Sumbas, Toprakkale, and Central district (Osmaniye), chosen as the primary
research area due to its densest population and the fastest urbanization rate (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Location of the study area.

There are four main stages and substages in the study. In the first stage of the study, information about the
population size and density in the neighborhoods of Osmaniye was obtained from the Turkish Statistical Institute to
determine the adequacy of the available open and green spaces in the city center [22]. The neighborhood-level
population density was mapped using ArcGIS software, and neighborhoods were classified according to the population
density. In the second stage, the open and green spaces in Osmaniye city center were categorized according to the
Spatial Plans Construction Regulation-Annex-2 (Table 1).

Table 1. Standards and minimum area sizes for open and green spaces in different population groups [23]
Spatial Plans Construction Regulation Annex-2 population groups per person m2
0- 75000 75001- 150001- 501000-
150000 500000 +
Child playground
open and green

Planning within the Park

district boundaries Square 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
spaces

District sports field

Botanical park
Promenade
Recreation

102
 Çolakkadıoğlu et al. 7(2):100-113, 2021

The classification process was done in ArcGIS 10 software using Google Earth satellite images, field studies, and
development plans retrieved from Osmaniye Municipality. The distribution and per capita amount of open and green
spaces in Osmaniye city center were determined at the neighborhood level. Urban forests, cemeteries, city parks, and
refuges/safety islands, which are not included in the regulation but acknowledged as urban green spaces in the literature,
were also added to the calculation, and a separate calculation was performed to determine the open and green space per
capita in the city center. The results were compared with the minimum values (10m2 /person) in the Spatial Plans
Construction Regulation-Annex-2, and open and green spaces per capita in the study area were determined at the
neighborhood level. Then, the future open and green spaces planned for Osmaniye city center in the development plan
amendment 2017 were revised.
In the third stage, the accessibility (service area) of children playgrounds, neighborhood parks, and sports fields,
commonly used open and green spaces by city dwellers, were analyzed. Buffer areas, which determine the optimal
transportation distance, were created using ArcGIS 10 software. According to the Spatial Plans Construction Regulation
(Article 12) playgrounds and sports fields should be planned within 500 m service area. But according to many studies
such as Ersoy (2007), Uz (2005), Altunkasa (2004), Oh and Jeong (2007), Kellett and Matthew (2009), Duncan et al.,
(2011), the optimum service area for neighborhood parks is 800 m [1, 10, 24-28]. Similarly, Van Herzele and
Wiedemann (2003) state that it is 400 m for the playground and recreational areas at the neighborhood level, and 800 m
at the district level [29]. In this study, the optimum service area was determined 400 m (10-minute walk) for children
playgrounds and 800 m (approximately 20-minute walk) for neighborhood parks and sports fields. At the last stage of
the study, the past and present sufficiency and accessibility of open and green spaces in Osmaniye were discussed, and
particular suggestions were made for the current situation and future planning at the neighborhood level. Accordingly, it
was suggested to prioritize the open and green spaces in urban planning, which was calculated as the minimum 10 m2
open green area per person at the neighborhood level in the given regulation.

3. Results
3.1. Population Density in Osmaniye City Center
According to TÜİK (2020), Osmaniye’s population is 243490 living in 36 neighborhoods [22], and the area is
4303.81 hectares. According to the population density measurements, the research area's most densely populated (more
than 200 ha/person) neighborhoods are Mehmet Akif Ersoy and Raufbey neighborhoods (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Population density map of Osmaniye district

103
 Çolakkadıoğlu et al. 7(2):100-113, 2021

The population density of 11 neighborhoods around the given two neighborhoods is more than 100 ha/person.
Neighborhoods with low population density are generally in the west of the railway line, where single or two-story
buildings are widespread.

3.2. The Available and Future Open and Green Spaces in Osmaniye City Center
There are children playgrounds, neighborhood parks, squares, and sports fields in the Osmaniye city center, among
the open and green spaces categorized in the Spatial Plans Construction Regulation. The distribution of those spaces in
Osmaniye city center was determined in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Distribution of open and green areas in Osmaniye district

According to the study results, there were 48 open and green spaces in the city center of Osmaniye, including 15
children playgrounds, 20 neighborhood parks, 12 sports fields/facilities, and 1 square, and they covered a total area of
278566.33 m2. The amount of open and green space per person was 1.15 m2 in the research area, which is well below
the minimum value of 10 m2 in the Spatial Plans Construction Regulation. In addition to the spaces specified in the
regulation, there were also a "Masal Park" thematic park (33414 m2), cemetery (519700 m2), military area (1318800
m2), refuges/safety islands (38800 m2), Osmaniye Korkut Ata University campus (330000 m2), and forest area (23000
m2). The forest area is only categorized as an open and green space in the mentioned regulation, while other spaces are
not. In addition, these areas are not suitable for active use by the public as open and green spaces. However, a second
measurement was made, including the given spaces due to their benefits to the city residents. The results showed that
the amount of open and green spaces available in Osmaniye city center was 2542280.33 m2 and 10.44 m2 per person.
According to the distribution of open and green spaces at the neighborhood level, 36 neighborhoods had 12 children
playgrounds, 18 had neighborhood parks, and nine had sports fields. There were no open and green spaces in 9
neighborhoods (Table 2).

104
 Çolakkadıoğlu et al. 7(2):100-113, 2021

Table 2. Open and green areas in the study area according to Spatial Plans Construction Regulations
Ratio to
children Neighbor Sports m2/
Square Neighbor
playgrou hood Field and Total Area pers
Neighborhood hood
nd Park Facility on
Area %
Number 1 1 1 - 3
Adnan Menderes 1.48 2.22
Area (m2) 1484.07 8603.45 7811.31 - 17898.83
Number - - - - -
Ahmet Yesevi 0.00 0.00
Area (m2) - - - - -
Number - 1 - - 1
Ali Bekirli 0.35 0.39
Area (m2) - 2012.31 - - 2012.31
Number - 2 - - 2
Alibeyli 3.20 2.44
Area (m2) - 11369.83 - - 11369.83
Number - - - - -
Baş 0.00 0.00
Area (m2) - - - - -
Number - 1 - - 1
Cumhuriyet 0.22 0.17
Area (m2) - 1584.95 - - 1584.95
Number - 1 - - 1
Dr.İhsan Göknal 0.16 1.05
Area (m2) - 3359.68 - - 3359.68
Number 2 - - - 2
Dumlupınar 0.47 0.77
Area (m2) 3045.97 - - - 3045.97
Number 1 1 1 1 4 2.30 1.94
Esenevler
Area (m2) 1095.98 3056.27 7330.76 6010.00 17493.00
Number - 1 1 - 2
Eyüp Sultan 0.60 0.48
Area (m2) - 3106.45 2217.74 - 5324.19
Number - 1 3 - 4
Fakıuşağı 4.04 9.51
Area (m2) - 1593.50 113780.25 - 115373.75
Number - 1 - - 1
Fatih 0.75 1.03
Area (m2) - 3652.87 - - 3652.87
Number - 1 - - 1
Gebeli 0.13 0.39
Area (m2) - 2265.21 - - 2265.21
Number - - - - -
Hacı Osmanlı 0.00 0.00
Area (m2) - - - - -
Number - 1 1 - 2
Haraz 0.75 1.45
Area (m2) - 2931.65 1365.55 - 4297.2
Number - - - - -
İstiklal 0.00 0.00
Area (m2) - - - - -
Number - 1 - - 1
Karacay 0.30 0.48
Area (m2) - 3383.16 - - 3383.16
Number - - 1 - 1
Kazım Karabekir 0.77 0.93
Area (m2) - - 5020.98 - 5020.98
Number 1 - - - 1
Kurtuluş 0.20 0.15
Area (m2) 1017.88 - - - 1017.88
Mehmet Akif Number 1 - - 1
0.21 0.07
Ersoy Area (m2) 1028.94 - - - 1028.94
Number 1 2 - - 3
M. Fevzi Çakmak 1.06 1.09
Area (m2) 577.78 14909.90 - - 15487.68
Number - - - - -
Mevlana 0.00 0.00
Area (m2) - - - - -
Number 1 - 1 - 2
Mimar Sinan 0.68 0.58
Area (m2) 2059.82 - 6175.39 - 8235.21
Rahime Hatun Number 2 - - - 2 0.27 0.19

105
 Çolakkadıoğlu et al. 7(2):100-113, 2021

Area (m2) 2547.34 - - - 2547.34

Number 1 - - - 1
Raufbey 0.12 0.06
Area (m2) 875.40 - - - 875.40
Number 1 1 - - 2
Rızaiye 1.39 1.52
Area (m2) 1419.13 8394.28 - - 9813.41
Number 1 - - - 1
Selimiye 0.08 0.41
Area (m2) 1776.13 - - - 1776.13
Number - - - - -
Şirinevler 0.00 0.00
Area (m2) - - - - -
Number - 1 - - 1
Ulaşlı 1.38 1.35
Area (m2) - 6283.88 - - 6283.88
Number - - - - -
Vatan 0.00 0.00
Area (m2) - - - - -
Number - - - - -
Yaverpaşa 0.00 0.00
Area (m2) - - - - -
Number - - - - -
Yedi Ocak 0.00 0.00
Area (m2) - - - - -
Number - 1 - - 1
Yeni 0.09 0.73
Area (m2) - 3119.72 - - 3119.72
Number - 1 - - 1
Yeşil Yurt 0.17 0.92
Area (m2) - 2814.11 - - 2814.11
Number - 1 1 - 2
Yıldırım Beyazıt 1.20 1.67
Area (m2) - 3299.75 9316.15 - 12615.9
Number 2 - 2 - 4
Yunus Emre 0.54 2.67
Area (m2) 3622.30 - 13246.51 - 16868.81
Number 15 20 12 1 48
TOTAL 0.63 1.15
Area (m2) 20550.74 85740.95 166264.64 6010.00 278566.33

Among the neighborhoods with open and green spaces, Fakıuşağı neighborhood had the most considerable amount
of open and green spaces per person. However, it was still below the minimum value of 10 m2 per person as specified in
the regulation. In the revised development plan approved by Osmaniye Municipality Council on 06.01.2017, the
recommended amount of open and green spaces is 489008 m2. If the recommendations are followed, the total amount of
open and green spaces in Osmaniye city center will be 767574.33 m2, and the per capita amount will be 3.15 m2.
However, it is still below the minimum value in the regulation.
According to the distribution of planned open and green spaces at the neighborhood level, no open and green space
construction is planned for Mehmet Akif Ersoy and Raufbey Neighborhoods, which currently have the least open and
green space per capita. Additionally, no neighborhood park and children playground construction are planned for the
nine neighborhoods that do not have open and green spaces. It is only planned to build one sports field in Baş, Ahmet
Yesevi, and Yaverpaşa Neighborhoods (Figure 4). Yedi Ocak, Vatan, Şirinevler, Mevlana, İstiklal, and Hacıosmanlı
Neighborhoods, which lack open and green spaces, were not included in the open and green space planning in the 2017
revised development plan.
On the other hand, according to the 2017 revised development plan, the future amount of open and green space per
person in the neighborhoods increased significantly. For example, it is planned to increase the current open and green
space of 9.51 m2 to 10.98 m2 per person in the Fakıuşağı Neighborhood, which thus will become the only neighborhood
in Osmaniye city center that meets the minimum value in the regulation.
According to the 2017 revised development plan, the new open and green areas do not meet the needs of the city
dwellers due to the high population and urbanization rate. Approximately 1670000 m2 of open green spaces are required
in the city center to meet the minimum value specified in the regulation (Table 3).

106
 Çolakkadıoğlu et al. 7(2):100-113, 2021

Figure 4. Open and green areas envisaged in Osmaniye City Center 2017 Revision Development Plan

Table 3. Evaluation of existing and planned open green space areas within the scope of Spatial Plans Construction
Regulation
existing and With the 2017 The area that should be Required open
planned open green Revision according to the minimum green space
space Contraction Plan value of the regulation
Area (m2) 278566.33 767574.33 2434900 -1667325.67
m2/person 1.15 3.15 10.00 -6.84

Besides, Osmaniye Governorship (2020) plans to build a National Garden on the land of the General Directorate of
Forestry next to the Theme Park in the Osmaniye city center [30]. Although the spatial size of the National Garden is
not known, it will increase the total amount of open and green spaces in Osmaniye city center.

3.3. Accessibility of Open and Green Spaces in Osmaniye City Center

The inadequacy and unbalanced distribution of open and green spaces in the Osmaniye city center required
analyzing the accessibility to those spaces (Figure 5).
The analysis results revealed that 16.52% (7108070 m2) of the research area was children playground, 51.60%
(22209831.19 m2) was neighborhood parks, and 46.22% (19887732.44 m2) was sports fields/facilities. Most of the
children playgrounds were in the center of the research area. Approximately 80% of the neighborhoods in Osmaniye
city center lacked children playgrounds. Especially the distance of the closest children playgrounds in the periphery
neighborhoods can be up to 2000 m. Neighborhood parks were more accessible than children playgrounds due to the

107
 Çolakkadıoğlu et al. 7(2):100-113, 2021

higher number of neighborhood parks and their distribution within the area. The neighborhood park accessibility
distance (service area) was measured at 800 m 52% of the research areas at the neighborhood level were the
neighborhood parks. The most disadvantaged neighborhoods in accessing the neighborhood parks were Vatan,
Mevlana, Mimar Sinan, Selimiye, Mehmet Akif Ersoy, and Raufbey neighborhoods.

Figure 5. Accessibility of green areas in Osmaniye district

When the sports field and facilities were discussed in terms of accessibility, it was found that 33% of the
neighborhood area was sports fields, and 14% were sports facilities. There was a sports field or sports facility in about
half of the research area (47%). However, their distribution was quite uneven. They were primarily located in the south
and north periphery neighborhoods, and all the neighborhoods in the center were out of the sports fields’ service area.
When the accessibility to open and green spaces in Osmaniye city center was addressed in general, it was found that
67% of the research area was within the service area of open and green spaces. Furthermore, the neighborhoods that did
not have much access to open and green spaces were Selimiye, Ahmet Yesevi, Yaverpaşa, Yeşil Yurt, Dr. İhsan
Göknal, and Yunus Emre Neighborhoods. The Vatan Neighborhood did not have any open and green space.

4. Discussion
Open and green spaces with ecological, economic, and social benefits provide livable and comfortable environments
to city dwellers. According to Manavoğlu and Ortaçeşme (2005), a systematic planning framework, from macro to
micro scale, is necessary to provide the multifaceted benefits of open and green spaces to the urban ecosystem and
residents [11]. Gül and Küçük (2001) stated that open and green space planning should be done by considering the
physical structure and all components of a city, including the physical and mental needs of city residents [2]. However,
as Hepcan (2013) stressed, open and green spaces are constructed randomly in Turkey, rather than adopting an approach
that considers the needs of the city and residents and natural landscape, which leads to the inadequacy and unbalanced
distribution of open and green space in cities [31] The results of this study also revealed the shortcomings caused by the
lack of a systematic approach to open and green spaces in the city of Osmaniye (Table 4).

108
 Çolakkadıoğlu et al. 7(2):100-113, 2021

Table 4. Comparison of case studies on open and green spaces in various cities with the result of this study
Study City Green Area Per Person Open and green space classification
m²
[32] Antalya 4.4 active green space
[13] Kayseri 5.4 active green space
[15] Kahramanmaraş 1.4 Children playground, park and sports field
[16] Osmaniye 0.4 Neighborhood park, children playground, sports
field
[17] Burdur 4.0 children playground, sports field
[11] Antalya 4.2 active green space
[18] Kırklareli 1.6 Children playground, park and sports field
[20] Niğde 4.0 Children playground, park and sports field
[33] Konya/ 12.53 Neighborhood park, children playground, urban
Selçuklu forest
[34] Nevşehir 3.30 Active green space
[35] Çanakkale 3.05 Active green space
1.15 Children playground, park and sports field
Results of Osmaniye Children playground, park and sports field,
this study 10.44 refuge, cemetery, urban forest, thematic park,
university campus
The open and green spaces per person in many cities of Turkey are far below the minimum value in the Spatial
Plans Construction Regulation. One of them is Osmaniye district. However, when the categories of open and green
spaces in Annex -2 of the Regulation (district boundaries) are taken into account, the amount of open and green spaces
per capita in Osmaniye remain quite low compared to many studies listed in Table 4. The amount of open and green
space per capita in Osmaniye is significantly higher compared to other studies when not only the Regulation categories
but also all open and green space categories are taken into account.

5. Conclusion
Rapid population growth, multi-story buildings, and unplanned urbanization cause several social, economic, and
environmental problems in Osmaniye. This situation negatively affects the life quality of urban residents. The new open
green areas do not meet the needs of the Osmaniye city dwellers due to the high population and urbanization rate. After
Osmaniye became a province in 1996, the city population increased rapidly. The settlement previously consisted of
single or double-story houses with orchards, but multi-story buildings have replaced them. The precedent principle in
the revised zoning plan 2017 also triggered the population growth, making the need for open and green spaces more
evident. However, the available open and green spaces in Osmaniye city center were not compatible with the population
growth.
There is an urgent need for new open and green spaces for both legal regulations and urban residents. The locations
of the new open and green spaces should be determined considering the requirements at the neighborhood level. The
available open and green spaces in all neighborhoods in Osmaniye city center are below the minimum value in the
regulation. Out of 36 neighborhoods, nine do not have any open and green space. The low amount of open and green
spaces per person and the unavailability of open and green spaces in 9 neighborhoods underline the importance of
accessibility. Especially Vatan and Ahmet Yesevi Neighborhoods did not have any open and green spaces or any access
to close green space. Thus, it can be inferred that these neighborhoods were in the most disadvantaged position, and
they should be prioritized for providing open and green spaces. There is an urgent need for open and green spaces in
those neighborhoods. However, there has been no realistic or practical submission and offer for the number and spatial
size of open and green spaces in neighborhoods so far, especially in the neighborhoods in the south of the railway, as
those neighborhoods had multi-story buildings and dense populations. They also did not have enough space for the
planned open and green spaces. Therefore, the planned open and green spaces in Osmaniye city center were listed to
prioritize the open and green space category and accessibility.

109
 Çolakkadıoğlu et al. 7(2):100-113, 2021

The neighborhoods that have few open and green spaces in Osmaniye city center were Vatan, Ahmet Yesevi,
Yaverpaşa, Şirinevler, Mevlana, Baş, İstiklal, Hacı Osmanlı and Yedi Ocak neighborhoods. Except for the Vatan
Neighborhood, all were densely populated neighborhoods. Therefore, a significant number of residents suffered from
the lack of open and green space. There was not much multi-story construction, only in the Vatan Neighborhood in the
north of the railway. The neighborhood’s population density and construction rate were not high, which allowed
planning the open and green spaces considering residents’ needs. Besides, this region had enough space to construct a
city park necessary for Osmaniye city center. The city park, which would be built following the spatial size and
equipment standards, would increase the total amount of open and green spaces in Osmaniye city center
On the other hand, the densely populated neighborhoods in the south of the railway where multi-story buildings
were prevalent did not have enough space for open and green spaces. It was a severe problem, especially for the Yedi
Ocak, Hacı Osmanlı, İstiklal, Baş, Mevlana, Gebeli, and Ahmet Yesevi Neighborhoods, which did not have any open
and green spaces. Although most could use other neighborhoods' neighborhood parks and sports fields, they were
inadequate in number and size.
The study results showed that the attempts to realize open and green space standards specified in the revised zoning
regulation for city centers failed. The open and green space planning should be executed with urban planning and
should consider the population density, life quality, and accessibility factors [2, 11].
According to the results obtained from this study, the amount and types of open green areas recommended at the
neighborhood level for Osmaniye district are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Classes and quantities of open and green space recommended primarily at neighborhood level
Neighborhood Existing open and green space Required open and green space
open and green space class Total area m2/ priority open and green Total area m2/
m2 person space class m2 person
Neighborhoods without open and green spaces
Vatan - children playground,
0.00 0.00 neighborhood park, sports 26670.00 10.00
field
Ahmet Yesevi - children playground,
0.00 0.00 neighborhood park, sports 18510.00 10.00
field
Yaverpaşa - 0.00 0.00 children playground, 11980.00 10.00
neighborhood park
Şirinevler - 0.00 0.00 children playground 17770.00 10.00
Mevlana - 0.00 0.00 children playground, 58250.00 10.00
neighborhood park
Baş - 0.00 0.00 children playground, sports 41520.00 10.00
field

İstiklal - 0.00 0.00 children playground, sports 62000.00 10.00

field
Hacı Osmanlı - 0.00 0.00 children playground, sports 41230.00 10.00
field
Yedi Ocak - 0.00 0.00 children playground, sports 97810.00 10.00
field
neighborhoods in the north of the railway where multi-storey construction is not dense
Yeşil Yurt 1 neighborhood park 2814.11 0.92 children playground, 27695.89 9.08
neighborhood park
Dr. İhsan 1 neighborhood park children playground,
Göknal 3359.68 1.05 neighborhood park 28530.32 8.95
Yeni 1 neighborhood park 3119.72 0.73 children playground, sports 39530.28 9.91
field
Yunus Emre 2 neighborhood park children playground
2 sports field 16868.81 2.67 46201.19 7.33
neighborhoods with dense multi-storey construction
Mehmet Akif 1 children playground 1028.94 0.07 neighborhood park, sports 139261.06 9.93
Ersoy field
1 children playground 875.40 0.06 neighborhood park, sports 153154.60 9.94
Raufbey field

110
 Çolakkadıoğlu et al. 7(2):100-113, 2021

2 children playgrounds 2547.34 0.19 children playground, sports 130572.66 9.81

Rahime Hatun field
Alibeyli 2 children playgrounds 11.369,83 2.44 sports field 35140.17 7.56
1 neighborhood park 1.584,95 0.17 children playground, sports 93865.05 9.83
Cumhuriyet field
1 children playground 1017.88 0.15 children playground, sports 65842.12 9.85
Kurtuluş field
1 neighborhood park children playground,
Eyüp Sultan 1 sports field 5324.19 0.48 neighborhood park 105115.81 9.52
1 children playground
1 neighborhood park 17493.00 1.94 children playground 72467.00 8.06
1 sports field
Esenevler 1 square
1 children playground children playground,
Mimar Sinan 1 sports field 8235.21 0.58 neighborhood park 133504.79 9.42
Ulaşlı 1 neighborhood park 6283.88 1.35 children playground 40216.12 8.65
Mareşal Fevzi 1 children playground
Çakmak 2 neighborhood park 15487.68 1.09 children playground 126742.32 8.91
1 children playground 9.813,41 1.52 sports field 54436.59 8.48
Rızaiye 1 neighborhood park
Ali Bekirli 1 neighborhood park 2.012,31 0.39 children playground 49687.69 9.61
Kazım 1 sports field 5.020,98 0.93 children playground 49029.02 9.07
Karabekir
Fatih 1 neighborhood park 3652.87 1.03 children playground 41520.00 8.97
Yıldırım 1 neighborhood park
Beyazıt 1 sports field 12615.90 1.67 children playground 62734.10 8.33
1 children playground
Adnan 1 neighborhood park 1 sports field 17898.83 2.22 children playground, 789501.17 7.78
Menderes neighborhood park
1 neighborhood park 3383.16 0.48 children playground, sports 67596.84 9.52
Karacay field
2 children playgrounds 3.045,97 0.77 neighborhood park, sports 36574.03 9.23
Dumlupınar field
1 neighborhood park 4297.20 1.45 25242.80 8.55
Haraz 1 sports field children playground
1 neighborhood park
Fakıuşağı 3 sports field 115373.75 9.51 children playground 5976.25 0.49
1 neighborhood park 2265.21 0.39 children playground, sports 55174.79 9.61
Gebeli field
1 children playground 1776.13 neighborhood park, sports 41833.87 9.59
0.41
Selimiye field

Competing Interest / Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they no conflict of interest. None of the authors have competing interests in the manuscript.

Funding
There is no financial support and commercial support.

Acknowledgements
Not applicable

6. References
[1] Ersoy, M. (2007). Urban planning theories, Introduction to Planning Theory, 9(34), p. 440, İmge Publishing,
ISBN: 9789755335216.
[2] Gül, A., and Küçük, V. (2001). The research of Isparta and the open-green areas in urban, Journal of Süleyman
Demirel University Faculty of Forestry, 2(1), 27-48, ISSN: 1302-7085.
[3] Aydemir, Ş., Erkonak S., Aydemir, D., Beyazlı, N., Ökten, A.M., Öksüz, C., Sancar, Y., and Türk, A. (2004). Urban
planning and design, Chapter 12, 284-298, Akademi Publishing, ISBN:975-95396-7-5. Trabzon.

111
 Çolakkadıoğlu et al. 7(2):100-113, 2021

[4] Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., and Stevens, J.C. (2006). Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United
States, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 4(3), 115-123, DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.007.
[5] Wentworth, J. (2016). Green space and health, The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology,
https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0538/.
[6] Dunnett, N., Swanwick, C., and Woolley, H. (2002). Improving urban parks, play areas and green spaces, London
Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Urban Research Report), ISBN 1851125760.
[7] Walker, C. (2004). The public value of urban parks, beyond recreation: A broder view of urban parks, The Urban
Institute, (Research Report), https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/57651/311011-The-Public-
Value-of-Urban-Parks.PDF.
[8] Sherer, P.M. (2003). The benefits of parks:Why America needs more city parks and open space, The Trust for
Public Land, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237254032_The_Benefits_of_Parks_Why_America_
Needs_More_City_Parks_and_Open_Space/link/54f89dcb0cf28d6deca2bb7b/download.
[9] Handley, J., Pauleit, S., and Gill, S. (2008). Landscape, sustainability and the city, 2nd Edition Published by Taylor
& Francis Edited By, Maggie Roe, 336, ISBN 9780415404433, https://www.routledge.com/Landscape-and-
Sustainability/Benson-Roe/p/book/9780415404433.
[10] Uz. Ö. (2005). Research for green spaces in Eskişehir city center using remote sensing and GIS, Master Thesis,
Anadolu University the Institute of Science and Technology, Department of Remote Sensing and Geographic
Information Systems, Eskisehir.
[11] Manavoğlu, E., and Ortaçeşme, V. (2015). A multi-criteria analysis of the green spaces in Antalya and the
development of planning strategies, Journal of Akdeniz University Faculty of Agriculture, 28(1), 11-19.
[12] Davies, C., MacFarlane, R., McGloin, C., and Roe, M. (2015). Green infrastructure planning guide version:1.1,
Technical Report, 43, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1191.3688.
[13] Kurtaslan, B., and Yazgan, M. (2005). Evaluation of open and green areas of Kayseri urban complex with a system
approach, Selcuk University Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology, 20 (1), 69-80.
[14] Özcan, K. (2006). The role of open-green spaces in sustainable urban development: The case of Kırıkkale, Turkey,
Ecology, 15(60), 37-45.
[15] Doygun, H., and İlter, A.A. (2007). Investigating adequacy of existing and proposed active green spaces in
Kahramanmaras city, Ecology, 65, p. 21-27.
[16] Ergan, D. (2011). Urban green spaces in the context of urban deprivation: The example of Osmaniye, Master
Thesis, Yıldız Technical University, the Institute of Science and Technology, City and Regional Planning
Department, Urban Transformation and Planning Program, 176, Istanbul.
[17] Yenice, M. (2012). A spatial sufficiency and accessibility analysis for urban green spaces: A case study for Burdur,
Turkey, Turkish Journal of Forestry, 13(1), 41-47.
[18] Yücesu, Ö., Korkut, A., and Kiper, T. (2017). Analysis of open-green areas of Kırklareli city and a system
proposal, ARTİUM, p 5(2), 22-37.
[19] Hepcan, Ç., and Hepcan, Ş. (2018). Urban green infrastructure analysis: The case of Bornova, Mediterranean
Agricultural Sciences, 31(1), 37-43, DOI: 10.29136/mediterranean.378073.
[20] Olgun, R., and Yılmaz, T. (2019). Evaluation of presence of urban green space in the case of Niğde City,
Mediterranean Agricultural Sciences, 32 (1), 11-20.
[21] Olgun, R. (2019). Urban green space system proposal for the medium-sized cities: The case of Niğde City”,
Artium, 7(1), 57-69, DOI: 10.29136/mediterranean.486732
[22] TÜİK, 2020. Turkish Statistical Institute. Statistics Data Portal, Osmaniye Central District Population Data,
https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=Nufus-ve-Demografi-109.
[23] The Amendment of the Spatial Plans Construction Regulation, 2017.
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2017/05/20170517-2.htm.
[24] Herzele, A., and Wiedemann, T. (2003). A monitoring tool for provision of accessible and attractive urban
green spaces, landscape and urban planning, 63, 109-126.
[25] Altunkasa M.F. (2004). Urban development and green spaces in Adana, Adana City Council Environmental
Report, 17, Adana.
[26] Oh.K., and Jeong, S. (2007). Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS, Landscape and Urban
Planning, 82(1), 25-32, DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.014.
[27] Kellett, J., and Matthew, W.R. (2009). Creating active communities: How can open and public spaces in urban and
suburban environments support active living? Adelaide: Active living coalition, a literature review, Report by

112
 Çolakkadıoğlu et al. 7(2):100-113, 2021

the Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies, University of South Australia to SA Active Living
Coalition. http://heartfoundation.org.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/Creating-Active-Communitiesfull.pdf.
[28] Duncan, D.T., Aldstadt, J., Whalen, J., Melly S., and Gortmaker, S. (2011). Validation of walk score for estimating
neighborhood walkability: An analysis of four US metropolitan areas, Journal of Environmental and Public
Health, 8, 4160–4179.
[29] Van Herzele, A., and Wiedemann, T. (2003). A monitoring tool for accessible and attractive green
spaces, Landscape and Urban Planning, 63, 109-126.
[30] Osmaniye Governorship (2020). Project Announcements, http://www.osmaniye.gov.tr/cevre-ve-sehircilik-
bakanimiz-sayin-murat-kurum-osmaniyeye-yapilmasi-planlanan-millet-bahcesi-arazisinde-incelemelerde-
bulundu.
[31] Hepcan, Ş. (2013). Analyzing the pattern and connectivity of urban green spaces: A case study of Izmir, Turkey,
Urban Ecosystems, 16, 279-293.
[32] Ortaçeşme,V., Yıldırım, E., E. and Manavoğlu, E. (2005). An evaluation of green spaces in Antalya city in terms
of urban green spaces functions, Congress on Civil Engineering Problems of Antalya Region 2, 539-549,
https://www.imo.org.tr/resimler/ekutuphane/pdf/11171.pdf.
[33] Onder, S., Polat, A.T., and Korucu, S. (2011). The evaluation of existing and proposed active green spaces in
Konya Selçuklu District, Turkey, African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(3), 738-747. DOI:
10.5897/AJAR10.326.
[34] Aklıbaşında, M. (2019). Determining the active green areas and their adequacy by using satellite images and GIS:
The case study of Nevşehir city (Turkey), Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 28, 7274-7281.
[35] Alkan, Y. (2020). Evaluation of active green areas in line with user perceptions: Çanakkale (TURKEY), Fresenius
Environmental Bulletin, 29, 7532-7538.

113