Worldwide, especially in societies with higher education levels, traditional settlements are important components of cultural heritage in terms of sustainability. However, the recent wave of urbanisation that has been experienced in Turkey has placed significant pressure on traditional structures. The District of Kemaliye, which has largely preserved its traditional texture for various reasons, is a small town in the Erzincan Province of Turkey. The aim of this study is to determine the quality of life of the traditional settlement pattern of Kemaliye to contribute to its ecological, spatial and socio-cultural sustainability. A public opinion survey was carried out with the aim of identifying the public’s needs and demands and its socio-cultural characteristics. The survey also aimed to determine the quality of urban life in Kemaliye. Multidimensional statistical techniques were used to identify the most important environmental, socio-cultural, infrastructural and regional factors that affected the public’s views of quality of urban life in Kemaliye. Based on these findings, suggestions were formulated for the efficient use of resources in urban redevelopment efforts and to provide a basis for the new settlement plans that are projected to be carried out for the city centre of Kemaliye and its vicinity.
OktayD. Kentsel tasarimin kuramsal çerçevesine güncel bir bakiş. kentlerimiz, yaşam kalitesi ve sürdürülebilirlik. Mimarlık Dergisi2001; 302: 45–49.
2.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our common future (Brundtland Report), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
3.
PacioneM. Urban geography: a global perspective, New York: Routledge, 2005.
4.
NewmanPKenworthyJ. Sustainability and cities: overcoming automobile dependence, Washington, DC: Island Press, 1999.
5.
SzalaiAThe meaning of comparative research on the quality of life. In: SzalaiAAndrewsFF (eds). The quality of life – comparative studies, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1980, pp. 7–24.
World Health Organization. www.who.int/en/ (accessed 2 June 2014).
8.
VeenhovenRThe study of life satisfaction. In: SarisWEVeenhovenRScherpenzeelAC (eds). Comparative study of satisfaction with life in Europe, Budapest: Eötvös University Press, 1996, pp. 1–37.
9.
Dalkey N and Rourke D. The Delphi procedure and rating quality of life factors. In N. Dalkey & D. Rourke (eds) The quality of life concept. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, 1973, pp.209–221.
10.
HavighurstRJSuccessful aging. In: WilliamsRHCTibbittsCDonoliueW (eds). Process of aging: social and psychological perspectives1963; Vol 1, New York: Atherton, pp. 419–425.
11.
ShinDCJohnsonDM. Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life. Soc Indic Res1978; 5: 475–492.
12.
AndrewsFWhitneyS. Social Indicators of well-being: Americans' perception of life quality, New York: Plenum Press, 1976.
13.
CampbellAConversePRodgersW. The quality of American life, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1976.
14.
PacioneM. Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing – a social geographical perspective. Landsc Urban Plan2003; 65: 19–30.
15.
Van KampLLeidelmeijerKMarsmanA. Urban environmental quality and human well-being: towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landsc Urban Plan2003; 65: 5–18.
16.
LiuBC. Quality of life indicators in US Metropolitan areas: a statistical analysis, New York: Praeger Publishers, 1976.
17.
ZenhnerR. Indicators of the quality of life in new communities, Cambridge: MA Ballinger Publishing Co., 1977.
EvansDR. Enhancing quality of life in population at large. Soc Indic Res1994; 33: 47–48.
20.
StoverMELevenCL. Methodological issues in the determination of the quality of life in urban areas. Urban Stud1992; 29: 737–754.
21.
Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. Avrupa çevre ajansi çalişmalari raporu, Ankara: Turkish Psychological Association Publications, 2004.
22.
National Research Council. Community and quality of life: data needs for informed decision making, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002.
23.
Tekeli İ. Yaşam Kalitesi Göstergeleri: Türkiye İçin Bir Veri Sistemi Önerisi. TÜBA Raporları 6, Ankara, 2004.
24.
Türksever EN. Türkiye'de Büyük Şehir Alanlarında Yafam Kalitesinin De¬ğerlendirilmesine Yönelik Bir Yöntem Denemesi. Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 2001.
TUİK (Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu). www.tuik.gov.tr/Start.do;jsessionid= NXh0Tydbv32FpddWhvZ36B6gRhyVjthydRDhQ3gcFZGSzn05GQVV!-45838552 (accessed 2 June 2014).
29.
KaymakamlığıKemaliye. Her yönüyle kemaliye (Eğin), İstanbul: Kemaliye Kaymakamlığı Köylere Hizmet Götürme Birliği Yayını, 1996.
30.
Torbaloğlu E. Özgün yerleşimlerin sürekliliği üzerine bir araştirma: kemaliye örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 2010.
31.
ThornthwaiteCW. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geogr Rev1948; 38: 55–94.
32.
Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü. www.mgm.gov.tr/ (accessed 2 June 2014).
33.
İller Bankası. Kemaliye (Erzincan) Kentsel Sit Alanı Koruma Amaçlı İmar Planı Araştırma Raporu. İller Bankası, 2011.
34.
Alper B. Kemaliye (Eğin) yerleşme dokusu ve evleri üzerine bir araştirma. Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 1990.
35.
Vural K. Anadolu’da Ev Kültürünün Gelişimi ve Geleneksel Türk Evine Örnek “Kemaliye (Eğin) Evleri”. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 2010.
36.
LikertRThe method of constructing an attitude scale. In: FishbeinM (ed). Attitude theory and measurements, New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1967, pp. 90–95.
37.
TezbaşaranA. Likert type scale development guide, Ankara: Turkish Psychological Association Publications, 1997.
38.
NewboldP. Statistics for business and economics, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1995.
39.
MiranB. Basic statistics, İzmir: Aegean University Printing Office, 2003.
40.
AtikAAslanFYilmazB. Modelling purchasing demand of urban people for ornamental plants using logistic regression analysis: sample of Malatya City. J Anim Vet Adv2013; 12: 1317–1324.
HarmanHH. Modern factor analysis, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.
43.
YilmazBDaşdemirIAtmişE. Factors affecting rural development in Turkey: Bartın case study. For Policy Econ2010; 12: 239–249.
44.
AtikAYilmazB. Factors affecting industrial wood, material production yield in Turkey’s natural beech forests. Ann For Res2014; 57: 149–162.
45.
AtikAYilmazBAslanF. A study on the determination of factors effective on fibre chip wood in state forest managements: the sample of Bartın-Günye forest management. E-J New World Sci Acad Ecol Life Sci2014; 9: 1–14.
46.
HairJFAndersonRETathamRL. Multivariate data analysis with readings, 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
47.
İlgar E. Kent kimliği ve kentsel değişimin kent kimliği boyutu: eskişehir örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir, 2008.
48.
UzunOİlkeFÇetinkayaGErduranF. Peyzaj planlama: Konya İli, Bozkır-SeydişehirAhırlı-Yalıhüyük İlçeleri ve Suğla Gölü Mevkii Peyzaj Yönetimi, Koruma ve Planlama Projesi, Ankara: Lazer Ofset, 2012.
49.
SandalEK. Kahramanmaraş’ta ulaşim problemleri ve halkin ulaşim sistemine ve problemlerine bakişi. Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi2009; 14: 137–158.
50.
TümertekinE. Ulaşım coğrafyası No: 85, İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Ens. Yayınları, 1987.
51.
DökmeciV. Planlamada sayisal yöntemler, İstanbul: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Yayınevi, 2005.
Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. Avrupa Çevre Ajansı Çalışmaları, Ankara: ÇED, İzin ve Denetim Genel Müdürlüğü, Çevre Envanteri ve Bilgi Yönetimi Dairesi Başkanlığı, 2012.
54.
Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. Türkiye çevre sorunlari ve öncelikleri envanteri değerlendirme raporu. Yayın No:14, Ankara, 2012.
55.
PınarlıV. Yerel yönetimler ve çevre sorunu olarak kati atiklar. Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler Dergisi1992; 1: 23–34.
56.
WeeJPatersonM. Exploring how factors impact the activities and participation of persons with disability: constructing a model through grounded theory. Qual Rep2004; 14: 165–200.
57.
AltaşNEÖzsoyA. Building and environment: spatial adaptability and flexibility as parameters of user satisfaction for quality housing. Build Environ1997; 33: 315–323.
58.
ErgenoğluSAÇagdaşGMorphology and user satisfaction as components of housing quality. In: GülersoyNZEsinNÖzsoyA (eds). Quality of urban life-policy versus practice, İstanbul: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Şehir ve Bölge Planlama ve Araştırma Merkezi, 2003, pp. 263–273.
CooperMCEnvironmental memories. In: AltmanSLowSM (eds). Place attachment, New York: Plenum, 1992, pp. 87–112.
63.
EriksonK. Everything in its path: the destruction of a community in the Buffalo Creek flood, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976.
64.
GansH. The urban villagers, New York: Free Press, 1962.
65.
FriedMGrieving for a lost home. In: DuhlLJ (ed). The urban condition, New York: Basic Books, 1963, pp. 151–171.
66.
GörkemliNTekinGBaypınarYE. kültürel etkinlikler ve kent imaji -mevlana törenlerinin konya kent imajina etkilerine ilişkin hedef kitlelerin görüşleri. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi2013; 2: 150–171.
67.
DemirC. Kent Kimliği Geliştirme Sürecinde Mekânsal Model Tasarımı ve Kent Plancılarının Rolü. Planlama2006; 3: 117–122.
68.
RitchieJRB. Assessing the impact of hallmark events: conceptual and research issues. J Travel Res1984; 23: 2–11.
69.
AsasoğluA. Konut ve Konut Alanları Örneğinde Mimarlık Serüveni. Int J Arch Plan2013; 1: 57–65.
70.
Kabadayı H. Yaşam kalitesi ve kullanici memnuniyetinin kentsel tasarimdaki etkisine çok boyutlu yaklaşim. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 2006.
