Next Article in Journal
Impacts of Intensive Management Practices on the Long-Term Sustainability of Soil and Water Conservation Functions in Bamboo Forests: A Mechanistic Review from Silvicultural Perspectives
Previous Article in Journal
Optimisation of CO2 Laser Technological Parameters and Their Impact on the Surface Quality of Cut Wood
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/f16050786
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Benefits Beyond the Physical: How Urban Green Areas Shape Public Health and Environmental Awareness in Istanbul

by
Nilay Tulukcu Yıldızbaş
1,
Gökçe Gençay
2,
Üstüner Birben
3,
Funda Oskay
4,
Dalia Perkumienė
5,*,
Mindaugas Škėma
5 and
Marius Aleinikovas
5
1
Department of Forest Engineering, Environmental and Forest Law Department, Faculty of Forestry, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, 34473 Istanbul, Türkiye
2
Department of Forest Engineering, Department of Forest Law, Faculty of Forestry, Bartın University, 74100 Bartın, Türkiye
3
Department of Forest Engineering, Forest Economics Division, Faculty of Forestry, Çankırı Karatekin University, 18200 Çankırı, Türkiye
4
Department of Forest Engineering, Forest Entomology and Protection Department, Faculty of Forestry, Çankırı Karatekin University, 18200 Çankırı, Türkiye
5
Institute of Forestry, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Kedainiu District, 58344 Akademija, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2025, 16(5), 786; https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050786
Submission received: 12 March 2025 / Revised: 19 April 2025 / Accepted: 5 May 2025 / Published: 7 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Urban Forestry)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Urban densification in Istanbul is progressively limiting access to green spaces, with significant implications for public health and environmental awareness. This study investigates how urban green space use relates to psychological well-being and environmental values by surveying 400 visitors to Belgrad Forest. Exploratory factor analysis revealed five key dimensions of user perception and behavior: (1) personal benefit and well-being, (2) energy and concentration, (3) urban green space experience, (4) use and activities, and (5) environmental concern and value. A strong positive relationship was observed between well-being and energy-related factors, while environmental concern emerged as a distinct construct with limited overlap with recreational behavior. Demographic variables such as age, income, and education level significantly shaped green space perceptions. These findings suggest that while urban green areas support mental and physical health, their role in enhancing environmental awareness follows a separate pathway. The study underscores the importance of incorporating large-scale green infrastructure into urban health and sustainability strategies, particularly in rapidly growing metropolitan regions.

1. Introduction

Changes in urban environments, driven by population growth and rapid urbanization, have taken a toll on the quality of green spaces [1]. This decline in green areas, coupled with the rise of concrete structures, has also harmed the physical and psychological well-being of city dwellers. Urban green spaces are often called the ‘lungs’ of cities, delivering essential ecosystem services such as biodiversity conservation, better air quality, and reduced carbon emissions [2,3]. Beyond this, they encourage physical activity, ease stress, and bolster public health [4]. Recent research has consistently shown that people who spend time in green spaces experience tangible benefits to both their physical and mental health [5,6,7,8,9,10]. By fostering a connection to nature, these spaces lift psychological well-being and help lessen mental health challenges such as depression and anxiety [11]. Indeed, the mental health benefits of green spaces are not limited to individual mechanisms such as stress reduction or attention restoration; Hartig (2021) [12] emphasizes that these effects also occur at a collective level through social connectedness, community support, and shared experiences. Research also supports that urban greening helps reduce loneliness and its associated effects, such as hopelessness and despair [13]. Moreover, green spaces create environments conducive to physical activity, lowering the risk of chronic conditions such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes [14]. These findings highlight the need to adopt multidisciplinary approaches to ensure clarity in green space indicators and to coherently assess the complexity of urban living environments, in order to better interpret the impact of green spaces on public health [15]. Green spaces affect mental health not in a straightforward way, but through complex and intertwined pathways involving multiple mediators [16]. However, most studies in this field have relied solely on single mediation analyses [17]. As the value of green spaces gains recognition, understanding how society perceives and appreciates them has become increasingly critical. Similar findings have been reported by the World Health Organization [18,19]. Urban green spaces in Istanbul are increasingly under pressure due to rapid urbanization and limited green coverage per capita. Belgrad Forest, as the largest remaining urban forest in the city, plays a vital role in providing ecological, recreational, and health-related benefits. Despite its significance, few studies have explored user perceptions and health impacts in this specific context. By addressing this gap, the present study contributes to both theoretical discussions on green space perception and practical planning strategies aimed at enhancing public well-being and environmental awareness in metropolitan settings.
People’s attitudes, behaviors, and expectations toward green spaces play a direct role in shaping how often they use these areas, how much effort goes into conserving them, and how they are planned for the future [20]. Thus, comprehending public perception of green areas is crucial for their effective management and sustainability. Our research questions were: (1). How does access to urban green areas affect the physical and psychological well-being of residents in Istanbul, specifically in relation to the Belgrad Forest? (2). What are the key factors that influence public perceptions of urban green areas, and how do these perceptions vary by demographic characteristics (age, income, education)? (3). How do urban green areas contribute to environmental awareness and sustainable behaviors among the local population? In addition, the primary hypothesis of this study was that access to urban green areas, such as the Belgrad Forest, positively influences both public health and environmental awareness. Specifically, it was hypothesized that individuals who frequently utilize green areas for recreational or relaxation purposes report lower stress levels, enhanced well-being, and higher environmental awareness as reflected in proenvironmental behaviors and attitudes.
While there is substantial research highlighting the health benefits of green areas, there is a paucity of studies that examine the relationship between these spaces and both public health and environmental awareness simultaneously [21]. Furthermore, few studies have explored how public perception of green areas affects their use and management, particularly in the context of Istanbul with its unique cultural and environmental characteristics [22,23,24]. By focusing in on the Belgrad Forest in Türkiye, this study seeks to address this gap, offering insights into how urban green spaces can be better managed to enhance public health and environmental awareness while weaving in community attitudes, behaviors, and health considerations.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Belgrad Forest in Istanbul was chosen as the study area because of its distinctive location (Figure 1), its accessibility to a wide variety of visitors, and its prominence as a destination for both local residents and international tourists. The spatial boundaries and location of the Belgrad Forest were visualized using Google Earth Pro (version 7.3.6 Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA), as presented in Figure 1.
Belgrade Forest is a key element of Istanbul’s green metropolitan structure, as well as being easily accessible and recreationally significant because of its central location. The forest sits between Istanbul’s Sarıyer and Eyüpsultan districts and is overseen by the Istanbul Regional Directorate of Forestry. Spanning roughly 5500 hectares, it boasts rich vegetation and offers a range of recreational activities, such as hiking, jogging, picnics, and nature observation. The forest attracts significant visitor interest, especially on weekends [25]. The Belgrad Forest, with its unique landscape blending urban settlements and the natural environment, holds the potential to reflect a wide range of expectations, needs, and opinions about the use and management of urban green areas thanks to its diverse user base. Positioned to capture various perspectives, the Belgrad Forest enables a thorough exploration of how the natural environment interacts with elements of urban life.
This case study was selected specifically because it allowed for the simultaneous analysis of both health-related and environmental dimensions. While prior studies have tended to address these domains separately, Belgrad Forest offers a rare opportunity to examine their interaction within a single urban green space.
Moreover, because of the forest’s scale and multifunctionality, the results of this study are mainly generalizable to large, complex, and publicly accessible green spaces. Care should be taken in transferring findings to small-scale or highly specialized green spaces.

2.2. Survey Design and Participants

The survey was conducted in June, July, and August 2024, covering both weekdays and weekends and various time slots to capture diverse usage rhythms and access patterns. Simple random sampling was used, with participants voluntarily selected within Belgrad Forest. No specific user group was prioritized, ensuring inclusion of all visitors present. Surveys were administered face-to-face by trained field researchers at entry points, walking trails, and recreational areas. No online surveys were conducted; data collection relied solely on in-person interactions. Researchers explained the study’s objectives and confirmed voluntary participation.
The sample size was determined using the formula: n = [N × t2 × P × Q]/[(N × d2) + (t2 × P × Q)]. In this equation, a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error were used. In the formula, n represents the required sample size, N stands for the population size, t is the z-score from the normal distribution corresponding to the confidence level (1.96 for 95%), d is the margin of error (0.05), P refers to the proportion of individuals in the population with the desired characteristic, and Q denotes the proportion of individuals without it. When no prior information is available about the population, P and Q are each set to 50% to yield the maximum sample size. Given the lack of prior data, P and Q were both set at 0.50. According to 2023 data from TurkStat (Turkish Statistical Institute), the population of Istanbul (N) is 15,655,924. Based on this, the sample size was calculated as 384. To improve the reliability and accuracy of the results, and to compensate for potential missing or erroneous responses, it was decided to survey 400 participants. All of the completed surveys were valid and usable, resulting in a 100% response rate.

2.3. Questionnaire Design and Structure

The survey instrument was developed to examine how urban green spaces relate to public health outcomes and environmental awareness. The questionnaire consisted of both closed- and open-ended items, informed by previous research and adapted from studies by Yılmaz (2004), Geray et al. (2007), and Pak & Berber (2011) [26,27,28]. It was organized into four main sections: demographics (gender, age group, education level, occupation, household income, and district of residence); forest awareness and usage (perceptions of forests, access levels, and ways of benefiting from forest areas); urban green space use and effects (frequency of visits, types of activities, and their psychological impacts, e.g., stress reduction, mood improvement); and environmental attitudes and values (measured using a 5-point Likert scale, including sensitivity to environmental issues, conservation tendencies, environmental activism, and connectedness with nature). The questionnaire included both closed- and open-ended items. Questions included: “What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear the word ‘forest’?”, “Do you have access to an urban green space in your neighborhood?”, “I watch nature documentaries”, and “I am willing to support green space conservation financially and morally”.
The data used in the exploratory factor analysis were specifically drawn from two parts of the questionnaire: Question 8, which asked participants how they feel after spending time in green spaces (e.g., relaxed, energized, and focused), and Question 10, which presented 15 Likert-scale statements reflecting environmental values and proenvironmental behaviors.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The correlations between the variables in the data set were analyzed, and the basic factors and dimensions between these variables were revealed.
Factor analysis (FA) was used to reduce dimensionality and uncover latent constructs. Initially, all 30 variables were included in the model. Variables with low loadings or cross-loadings were excluded based on analytical and semantic criteria. The scree plot was used to determine the ideal number of factors, which was found to be five. These five factors were identified as: (1) Personal Benefit and Well-being, (2) Energy and Concentration, (3) Urban Green Area Experience, (4) Urban Green Area Use and Activities, and (5) Environmental Concern and Value. Each factor represents a group of variables related to psychological, behavioral, and environmental dimensions. A factor correlation matrix (Figure 2) and heatmap (Figure 3) were created to visualize the relationships between the dimensions.

3. Results

3.1. Participant Demographics and Spatial Distribution

Participant demographic characteristics were collected through the first section of the questionnaire, which included items related to age, gender, education level, occupation, income, and place of residence (see supplementary document—survey questions). These questions aimed to provide a sociodemographic profile of urban green space users, specifically those visiting Belgrad Forest in Istanbul.
The demographic profile of the participants reflected a diverse sample representative of visitors to Belgrad Forest in Istanbul. A balanced distribution was observed in key variables such as district, gender, age, education level, occupation, and household income. A summary of these characteristics, which served as a basis for the interpretation of environmental attitudes and behaviors, is presented in Table 1 below.

3.2. Participant Green Space Use

Participants’ engagement with green spaces was assessed through survey items that explored the frequency and duration of visits to urban green areas, the types of activities they engage in, and their preferences related to stress relief. Specifically, participants were asked how many hours they typically spend in urban green spaces per week, whether they prefer visiting such areas when feeling stressed or tense, and which activities they mostly perform, such as walking, resting, picnicking, exercising, or nature observation (see supplementary document—survey questions).
The responses indicated that a significant number of participants regularly visited green spaces, with many spending multiple hours per week outdoors. Walking, relaxing, and enjoying nature emerged as commonly reported activities, alongside picnicking, reading, and spending time with pets. Additionally, a large proportion of respondents stated that they preferred visiting green spaces when feeling stressed, suggesting that these areas play an important role in emotional regulation and mental respite (Table 2). Table 2 summarizes the patterns of participants’ green space use and their perceived outcomes. The majority of respondents (69.8%) reported spending 3–4 h weekly in urban green areas, while 13.0% stayed for 2–3 h, 7.5% for more than 4 h, and the remaining 9.5% for shorter durations. In terms of activities, participants engaged most frequently in walking, jogging, or cycling (17.8%), followed by physical exercise (19.5%), playing games (22.3%), and picnicking (12.8%). Activities such as relaxing (5.8%), reading (11.3%), and walking pets (5.8%) were also noted, while activities such as meditation, photography, nature observation, and volunteering were less common. A significant portion of the participants (80%) stated that they preferred to visit green spaces when feeling stressed or tense, indicating the importance of these areas for mental relief. As for emotional outcomes after spending time in urban green spaces, respondents predominantly reported feeling more positive: 13.8% said they felt happier, 13.5% more peaceful, 11.0% less stressed, 8.2% more relaxed, 6.0% healthier, and 4.8% more energetic. These results highlight the multifaceted benefits of green spaces in terms of emotional and psychological well-being.

3.3. Factor Analysis Results

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to identify latent dimensions underlying participants’ emotional responses and environmental attitudes related to urban green space use. A total of 30 variables were included in the analysis, drawn from survey items designed to assess the psychological impacts of green space exposure and environmental values. The number of factors to retain was determined through the eigenvalue >1 rule and visual inspection of the Scree plot. As shown in Figure 2, a clear inflection point after the fifth component supported the selection of a five-factor solution.
The extracted five-factor structure accounted for a substantial portion of the total variance and revealed conceptually meaningful groupings of variables:
Factor 1: 0.993 (Personal Benefit and Well-being)
Factor 2: 0.951 (Energy and Concentration)
Factor 3: 0.960 (Urban Green Area Experience)
Factor 4: 0.951 (Urban Green Area Use and Activities)
Factor 5: 0.950 (Environmental Concern and Value)
These factors reflected key dimensions of participants’ interactions with and perceptions of urban green spaces, and they provide the foundation for subsequent thematic interpretation and analysis.

3.4. Thematic Interpretation of Factors

These factors represent the underlying dimensions or themes in the dataset and can reveal different patterns in environmental attitudes and behaviors among survey participants. Additionally, they can assist in identifying potential target areas for future research or interventions. Detailed explanations related to these five factors are provided below as headings.

3.4.1. Factor 1: Personal Benefit and Well-Being

This factor appears to be associated with the level of personal benefit and well-being individuals derive from green areas. High loadings in the questions “Spending time in urban green areas improves my mood” and “Spending time in urban green areas reduces my stress” indicate the positive psychological health effects that individuals experience when spending time in natural environments, particularly urban green areas. The high loading on the question “Participation in public consultations or participatory events” suggests that these individuals may be inclined to actively engage in environmental issues and participate in social processes. This reflects an environmentally conscious and active form of citizenship. The moderate loading in the question “How do you feel after spending time in urban green areas?” could indicate the emotional impact of green areas on individuals. The loading in the question “I participate in activities such as tree planting and sapling nurturing” suggests that these individuals adopt an active approach to environmental conservation.

3.4.2. Factor 2: Energy and Concentration

This factor emphasizes the positive effects of green areas on people’s energy and concentration. The medium-level measurement with the question “How many hours on average per week do you spend in urban green areas?” shows that the amount of time spent in green areas can be related to the positive effect on respondents’ energy and concentration. The relationship between “First thought that comes to mind about forests” and “Occupation” was linked to this factor. For instance, it is possible to say that people who work in close contact with nature can have better concentration and high energy.

3.4.3. Factor 3: Urban Green Area Experience

The question “How do you feel after spending time in urban green areas?” represents the participants’ interaction and experiences with green areas. The negative loading in the question “First thought that comes to mind about forests” suggests that participants who do not associate forests with green areas at first glance may give more importance to interest in urban green areas. Other questions with low loadings such as “How many hours on average per week do you spend in urban green areas?”, “How do you benefit from forests?”, and “City or district you live in” were related to this factor. It can be said that these variables affect the experience of urban green areas.

3.4.4. Factor 4: Green Area Use and Activities

This factor appears to relate to how individuals use green areas and the activities they prefer. The very high loading in the question “How many hours on average per week do you spend in urban green areas?” forms the basis of this factor. The time spent in green areas may indicate the frequency of use and commitment to these areas. The high loading in the question “How do you benefit from forests?” indicates that the choice of activities in green areas was related to this factor. Questions such as “Element of importance”, “Age”, and “How do you feel after spending time in urban green areas?” were also related to this factor, though with lower loadings. These variables may be considered factors influencing green space use and activity preferences.

3.4.5. Factor 5: Environmental Concern and Value

This factor seems to reflect individuals’ concerns for the environment and their values towards environmental protection. The very high loading in the question “Element of importance” lies at the center of this factor. What individuals consider important may reveal their environmental values and priorities. The negative loading in the question “Which activity is most common?” suggests that activities carried out in green areas are related to this factor. For example, activities such as nature photography may be associated with greater environmental concern and value, while activities such as picnicking may show a weaker association. Questions such as “How many hours on average per week do you spend in urban green areas?”, “Environmental activism and support for NGOs”, and “Household income” were also related to this factor. These variables may be considered factors that influence the formation of environmental concern and values.

3.5. Relationships Among Factors

Participants seemed to primarily use green areas for personal benefit and well-being. These areas help improve their mood, reduce stress, and support overall health. Green areas enhance participants’ cognitive functions by increasing their energy levels and concentration. The experience of urban green areas plays a significant role in how individuals perceive and evaluate these areas. Those who do not immediately associate forests with green areas may place greater importance on their urban green space experiences. The time spent in green areas and the activities performed are among the key factors influencing individuals’ attitudes and behaviors toward the environment. Participants’ environmental concerns and values affect how they use green areas and their activity preferences.
A heatmap for the factor correlation matrix (Figure 3) was created to show the correlations between the factors. This graphic makes it easier to evaluate the relationships between factors as positive or negative.
Based on the correlation heatmap among the factors, strong and weak relationships between the factors are summarized in Supplementary Table S1. A strong positive correlation was found between Factor 1 (Personal Benefit and Well-being) and Factor 2 (Energy and Concentration) (r = 0.76), indicating that individuals who benefit psychologically from urban green spaces also tend to report increased energy levels and improved concentration. A weak positive correlation was observed between Factor 1 and Factor 3 (Urban Green Area Experience) (r = 0.16), suggesting a slight connection between personal well-being and users’ subjective experiences in green areas, though this relationship is not substantial. In contrast, a weak negative correlation was found between Factor 4 (Urban Green Area Use and Activities) and Factor 5 (Environmental Concern and Value) (r = −0.032), implying that the way individuals use green spaces and the types of activities they engage in may be largely independent of their environmental attitudes or values. Additionally, a moderate negative correlation emerged between Factor 2 (Energy and Concentration) and Factor 5 (Environmental Concern and Value) (r = −0.15), indicating that individuals who exhibit stronger environmental concern may report slightly lower levels of energy or concentration. This finding may reflect the emotional or cognitive burden associated with heightened environmental awareness, such as ecoanxiety. These results underscore the complex and sometimes divergent ways in which urban green space use relates to psychological well-being, environmental engagement, and behavioral patterns.
This analysis sheds light on how personal benefits, energy, experiences in urban green areas, and environmental concerns interact. Specifically, it shows that things such as personal well-being and energy levels have only weak links to green space use and environmental awareness. This points to the idea that these elements are driven more by separate individual and societal factors rather than being directly tied to how much people engage with green spaces.

4. Discussion

This research provides valuable insights into how urban green spaces influence health, psychological well-being, and environmental awareness. Consistently with prior studies [11,14,29], our findings confirmed that urban green spaces play a substantial role in enhancing psychological well-being and heightening environmental awareness. What distinguishes this study, however, is the novel perspective it offers, exploring the distinctive relationship between health benefits and environmental awareness by examining both simultaneously.
In addition, the study not only confirmed the findings of previous studies but provided a deeper analysis of how health well-being and environmental awareness can be interconnected. The results showed that people who visit green urban spaces more often not only experience lower stress levels and better emotional well-being but value natural resources more and are inclined to more sustainable behavior. This aspect is of great importance for urban planning and environmental policy, as it shows that investments in the development of green infrastructure can have a dual benefit, not only improving public health but promoting more sustainable habits. For example, parks, community gardens, or forest trails can become not only places for recreation but means of raising people’s awareness of the importance of environmental conservation. This study also emphasizes that it is not enough to simply increase the accessibility of green spaces—it is important to encourage people to get involved in their care and in educational activities that help strengthen the emotional connection with nature. These can be various community initiatives, such as tree-planting campaigns, nature observation programs, or educational activities for children and adults.
This study is subject to certain methodological limitations. The sample size and distribution were deliberately constrained to avoid additional time and labor demands, which may limit the generalizability of the findings across broader sociodemographic groups. Furthermore, the analytical scope of the study was restricted to factor analysis and correlation techniques; the application of more advanced statistical methods capable of assessing causality was beyond the scope of this research. Spatially, the study was confined to a single case—Belgrad Forest in Istanbul—which inherently restricts the generalizability of the results. Nevertheless, the data obtained offer a level of depth and validity that enables meaningful comparisons with similar studies in the international literature, thereby reinforcing the contextual relevance of the findings.

4.1. Impact on Public Health

The study’s findings demonstrated that urban green spaces enhance people’s well-being. These results aligned with research highlighting the positive impact of urban green spaces on psychological health, such as reduced stress and increased energy levels [11]. The quiet atmosphere, scenery, mild climate, and clean air provided by forests, along with the phytoncides released from trees, have been found to reduce stress hormone levels [30]. Additionally, a three-day “shinrinyoku” (forest bathing) session was shown to enhance positive mood, reduce negative mood, lower blood pressure and heart rate, and increase SpO2 levels in male university students [31]. The present study also corroborated findings from Bratman et al. (2019) and Jennings & Bamkole (2019), which similarly noted beneficial effects on psychological well-being [11,14]. Additionally, the results echoed previous studies, such as that by Frumkin et al. (2017), that showed that green spaces create environments that promote physical activity and lower the risk of chronic diseases [32]. Evidence that time spent in green spaces boosts concentration is consistent with other research on this topic, including Dadvand et al. (2015) [33]. The recent pandemic has once again highlighted the importance of green spaces for individual and public well-being. Research has indicated that public demand for green spaces significantly increased during the COVID-19 period [34]. In a study conducted by Rajoo et al. (2021), statistically significant reductions were observed in stress, anxiety, and depression symptoms among groups participating in both nature exercise and nature therapy sessions [35]. Similarly, a survey conducted in Spain found that individuals who visited green spaces during the pandemic managed their stress levels more effectively than those who did not and that overall public appreciation of green areas had increased [36]. In short, it is clear that green spaces play a significant role in supporting both mental and physical health.

4.2. Environmental Awareness and Sustainable Behaviors

According to the study findings, the relationship between environmentally friendly behaviors and environmental awareness is complex. The findings indicated that individuals with high environmental awareness were frequent visitors to urban green spaces, and this result supports research that associates nature experience with environmental concern [37]. This is consistent with evidence that highlights how the availability and characteristics of public open spaces influence green space visitation [38]. Urban green spaces not only contribute to individual well-being but play a crucial role in climate change mitigation strategies, as emphasized in the concept of climate-smart forestry (CSF) [39]. This supports research on the role of spending time in green spaces in promoting social harmony and awareness [14]. Similar findings have been reported regarding the pandemic period. For instance, a survey conducted across 20 European countries examined changes in public attitudes toward nature and the environment during COVID-19. The results indicated a positive shift in societal awareness related to nature, while awareness of broader environmental issues remained largely unaffected [40]. In addition, individuals tended to value environmental initiatives more and were more likely to participate in sustainability-promoting activities, such as waste sorting, using bicycles or public transport, and choosing local and organic products. Their behavior may be determined not only by personal values but by social factors, such as community pressure or positive role models in their immediate environment [41]. However, it is important to note that promoting environmentally friendly behavior is not just a matter of individual awareness. It is also influenced by structural factors, such as urban infrastructure, convenient bicycle paths, easily accessible waste sorting systems [42], and educational programs that form sustainable habits from an early age. Therefore, to strengthen this connection, it is necessary not only to raise people’s awareness but to create a favorable environment for a sustainable lifestyle [43]. However, our research indicated that this relationship may vary depending on individual expectations and social contexts. For example, participants with high environmental concerns may have lower concentration and energy levels due to ecoconcern [44].
Our findings, which show that factors such as age, education level, and income significantly affect the use of green spaces, were also consistent with a study that indicated that demographic factors and social context affect motivations to use green spaces [20]. In particular, green space visitation in later life has been found to enhance perceived social support, which in turn is associated with reduced depressive symptoms among older adults [45]. With that being said, although adults are the most frequently observed social category in public green spaces, it was found that the elderly are the ones who spend the most time in these spaces, and while adults use green spaces only to cross or walk, the elderly prefer to sit in groups, talk, and socialize [46]. In addition to all these developments, a significant internal migration from densely populated urban centers to rural areas was observed in many parts of the world following the pandemic [47]. This trend was particularly influenced by the presence of second homes near urban cores and the tendency of affluent families to relocate to less populated regions during the health crisis [48].

4.3. Experience and Management of Urban Green Areas

Our findings show that green areas do more than just offer personal benefits—they also encourage social interactions and help build stronger community ties. This lines up with what Hartig et al. (2014) found: urban green spaces play a real role in boosting social health and cohesion [4]. That said, our study did not uncover a solid link between personal benefits and the experience of green spaces. It seems that the advantages people get from these areas might not depend heavily on their actual experiences—personal preferences or expectations could be steering the ship here.
A study on the adequacy of green spaces and public expectations found that urban and periurban green areas contribute to the quality of urban life, support the formation of urban identity, and help create a positive image of the city [49]. On top of that, our research highlights how crucial it is to manage urban green spaces with an eye on how people use them. The frequency and kinds of activities happening in these areas shape not just environmental attitudes but how satisfied people feel with the areas themselves [50]. Urban planners and policymakers need to tune into what the public wants and craft strategies that match those expectations. That is the key to boosting both the use and long-term sustainability of urban green spaces.
While the benefits of green space are well documented, the underlying mechanisms remain insufficiently understood; Markevych et al. (2017) emphasized the need for future research to adopt more precise green space and behavioral measures aligned with hypothesized pathways and to account for cultural and contextual factors when exploring these relationships [51]. Future research could examine in more detail how different types of green spaces (e.g., parks, forests, riverbanks) differently affect psychological well-being and environmental awareness. It would also be useful to delve deeper into what social and cultural factors can strengthen or weaken this connection, to achieve even more effective strategies that would promote sustainable urban development.

5. Conclusions

This study brought to light some of the standout roles urban green spaces play, proving just how versatile and multifunctional they are. It was motivated by the research problem of declining access to urban green spaces and the overlooked joint influence of these spaces on public health and environmental awareness. These spaces do a lot—think improving public health and boosting environmental awareness, to begin with. The main aim of this research was to examine the relationship between the use of urban green spaces and two core dimensions: psychological well-being and environmental awareness. Our findings heavily underscore that regular visits to places like Istanbul’s Belgrad Forest can cut down stress, ramp up energy levels, and lift people’s overall well-being. On top of that, we found a positive link between green space use and environmental awareness, which shows these areas are not just good for us individually—they have broader societal value as well. The results spotlight the real, positive effects urban green spaces have on public health while also revealing their tangled, nuanced tie to environmental awareness. What we uncovered here lines up well with other studies in the literature and adds a meaningful piece to the growing body of knowledge on this topic. For urban planners, policy makers, civil society actors, private sector stakeholders, and citizens alike, the message is clear: green spaces deserve top priority—not only for their public health benefits but for their potential to foster environmental awareness and strengthen social cohesion.
The research employed a face-to-face survey with 400 participants and applied exploratory factor analysis alongside one-way ANOVA to assess the influence of demographic variables on key factors. These findings back up the idea that urban planners need to put the development and upkeep of green spaces at the top of their list of priorities. In fast-growing cities such as Istanbul, where urbanization is in overdrive, urban green spaces act like a lifeline for public health. Beyond that, this study made it clear that these areas are vital for tackling environmental challenges, especially by sparking greater environmental awareness among people. In this respect, this study also suggests that urban green spaces can act as a catalyst in promoting environmental awareness. Integrating sustainability into urban planning is particularly relevant to the continuity of national efforts. In this respect, the results for Turkey are in line with the need to protect and increase urban green spaces as part of climate change adaptation measures, as included in the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan (2024–2030). Future urban planning initiatives in Istanbul and other rapidly urbanizing regions of Turkey should prioritize community-oriented management strategies that not only improve the physical landscape but promote environmental awareness. Environmental management should be prioritized in management planning, with emphasis on similar studies on public health. Key findings—such as the strong link between well-being and energy (r = 0.76) and the significant difference in environmental concern across occupational groups (F = 4.47, p = 0.006)—highlight the nuanced ways green spaces influence both individual and collective outcomes.
The current study suggests that future research should focus on extending the findings of these studies to metropolitan areas alike to Istanbul, both in different regions of Turkey and globally. Studies focusing on the public health benefits of green space use could provide further evidence of the key role of green spaces in improving quality of life and urban well-being. In addition, more research is needed to examine how negative impacts can be mitigated in the fight against climate change, especially in regions such as Türkiye that are at risk of natural disasters such as floods, droughts and earthquakes.
While the findings offer valuable insights, the study has certain limitations. Data were collected during a single season, which may limit the generalizability of results year-round. Additionally, the cross-sectional design restricts causal interpretations, and as with all self-reported surveys, the data may reflect certain subjective biases. Nevertheless, the study’s strengths include its robust sample size, high response rate, and empirical integration of psychological and environmental dimensions—an area often examined in isolation.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/f16050786/s1, Table S1: The correlation among the factors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.T.Y. and Ü.B.; methodology, N.T.Y., G.G. and Ü.B.; software, N.T.Y., Ü.B. and F.O.; validation, D.P., G.G. and F.O.; formal analysis, D.P., M.Š. and M.A.; investigation, N.T.Y., Ü.B., G.G. and D.P.; resources, data curation; writing—original draft preparation, N.T.Y., Ü.B., D.P., G.G. and F.O.; writing—review and editing, Ü.B., N.T.Y. and D.P.; visualization, D.P., M.Š. and M.A.; supervision, D.P., M.Š. and M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the anonymous reviewers who provided valuable feedback that improved this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Atanur, G.; Mirici, M.E.; Ersöz, N.D. Kaybolan Kent ve Doğa İlişkisini Kentsel Açık Yeşil Alanlar Üzerinden Tartışmak: Bursa Yıldırım İlçesi Örneği. IDEALKENT 2024, 16, 393–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Elmqvist, T.; Setälä, H.; Handel, S.N.; van der Ploeg, S.; Aronson, J.; Blignaut, J.N.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Nowak, D.J.; Kronenberg, J.; de Groot, R. Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Safaa, L.; Atalay, A.; Makutėnienė, D.; Perkumienė, D.; Bouazzaoui, I.E. Assessment of carbon footprint negative effects for nature in international traveling. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; De Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2014, 35, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Abass, K.; Serbeh, R. Public perceptions of the health benefits of green spaces in urban Ghana. Local Environ. 2023, 28, 967–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. D’Alessandro, D.; Buffoli, M.; Capasso, L.; Fara, G.; Rebecchi, A.; Capolongo, S. Green areas and public health: Improving wellbeing and physical activity in the urban context. Epidemiol. E Prev. 2015, 39, 8–13. [Google Scholar]
  7. Sugiyama, T.; Carver, A.; Koohsari, M.; Veitch, J. Advantages of public green spaces in enhancing population health. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 178, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kondo, M.; Fluehr, J.; McKeon, T.; Branas, C. Urban Green Space and Its Impact on Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, L.; Tan, P.Y.; Richards, D. Relative importance of quantitative and qualitative aspects of urban green spaces in promoting health. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 213, 104131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, R.; Zhang, C.Q.; Rhodes, R.E. The pathways linking objectively-measured greenspace exposure and mental health: A systematic review of observational studies. Environ. Res. 2021, 198, 111233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bratman, G.N.; Anderson, C.B.; Berman, M.G.; Cochran, B.; De Vries, S.; Flanders, J.; Folke, C.; Frumkin, H.; Gross, J.J.; Hartig, T.; et al. Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax0903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hartig, T. Restoration in nature: Beyond the conventional narrative. In Nature and Psychology: Biological, Cognitive, Developmental, and Social Pathways to Well-Being; Springer: Cham, Swizerland, 2021; pp. 89–151. [Google Scholar]
  13. Astell-Burt, T.; Hartig, T.; Putra, I.G.N.E.; Walsan, R.; Dendup, T.; Feng, X. Green space and loneliness: A systematic review with theoretical and methodological guidance for future research. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 847, 157521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jennings, V.; Bamkole, O. The relationship between social cohesion and urban green space: An avenue for health promotion. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cardinali, M.; Beenackers, M.A.; van Timmeren, A.; Pottgiesser, U. Preferred reporting items in green space health research. Guiding principles for an interdisciplinary field. Environ. Res. 2023, 228, 115893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dzhambov, A.M.; Markevych, I.; Hartig, T.; Tilov, B.; Arabadzhiev, Z.; Stoyanov, D.; Gatseva, P.; Dimitrova, D.D. Multiple pathways link urban green-and bluespace to mental health in young adults. Environ. Res. 2018, 166, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dzhambov, A.M.; Browning, M.H.; Markevych, I.; Hartig, T.; Lercher, P. Analytical approaches to testing pathways linking greenspace to health: A scoping review of the empirical literature. Environ. Res. 2020, 186, 109613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. World Health Organization. Green and Blue Spaces and Mental Health: New Evidence and Perspectives for Action; WHO Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  19. World Health Organization. Urban Green Spaces and Health; Document Number: WHO/EURO:2016-3352-43111-60341; WHO Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lin, B.B.; Fuller, R.A.; Bush, R.; Gaston, K.J.; Shanahan, D.F. Opportunity or orientation? Who uses urban parks and why. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e87422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Haluza, D.; Ortmann, J.; Lazic, T.; Hillmer, J. Urban Gardening and Public Health—A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yıldırım, H.T.; Yıldızbaş, N.T.; Uyar, Ç.; Elvan, O.D.; Sousa, H.F.P.E.; Dinis, M.A.P.; Perkumienė, D. Visitors’ Perceptions towards the Sustainable Use of Forest Areas: The Case of Istanbul Belgrade Nature Parks. Forests 2024, 15, 1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Birben, Ü.; Elvan, O.D.; Aydın, A.; Perkumienė, D.; Škėma, M.; Aleinikovas, M. Property Rights for Forest Carbon: A Conceptual Perspective. Sustainability 2025, 17, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Škėma, M.; Doftartė, A.; Perkumienė, D.; Aleinikovas, M.; Perkumas, A.; Sousa, H.F.P.E.; Pimenta Dinis, M.A.; Beriozovas, O. Development of a Methodology for the Monitoring of Socio-Economic Indicators of Private Forest Owners towards Sustainable Forest Management: The Case of Lithuania. Forests 2024, 15, 1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Elvan, O.D.; Yıldırım, H.T.; Birben, Ü. Public participation in decision-making processes in the planning for nature parks: The case of Istanbul’s Belgrad Forest. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2021, 193, 511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yılmaz, Z. Yeni Türk Ceza Kanunu, Gerekçe ve Tutanaklarla; Seçkin Yayıncılık: Ankara, Turkey, 2004; ISBN 975-347-868-2. [Google Scholar]
  27. Geray, U.; Şafak, İ.; Yılmaz, E.; Kiracıoğlu, Ö.; Başar, H. İzmir İlinde Orman Kaynaklarına İlişkin İşlev Önceliklerinin Belirlenmesi; Müdürlük Yayın No: 46, Teknik Bülten No: 35; Ege Ormancılık Araştırma Müdürlüğü: İzmir, Turkey, 2007; p. 137.
  28. Pak, M.; Berber, H. Orman Kaynaklarının İşlevlerine İlişkin Toplumsal Bilinç Düzeyinin İncelenmesi: Eskişehir Ili Örneği. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Derg. 2011, 12, 161–171. [Google Scholar]
  29. Peng, Y.; Li, Z.; Shah, A.M.; Lv, B.; Liu, S.; Liu, Y.; Li, X.; Song, H.; Chen, Q. Decoding the Role of Urban Green Space Morphology in Shaping Visual Perception: A Park-Based Study. Land 2025, 14, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Li, Q. Effect of forest bathing trips on human immune function. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2010, 15, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lyu, B.; Zeng, C.; Xie, S.; Li, D.; Lin, W.; Li, N.; Jiang, M.; Liu, S.; Chen, Q. Benefits of a three-day bamboo forest therapy session on the psychophysiology and immune system responses of male college students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Frumkin, H.; Bratman, G.N.; Breslow, S.J.; Cochran, B.; Kahn, P.H., Jr.; Lawler, J.J.; Levin, P.S.; Tandon, P.S.; Varanasi, U.; Wolf, K.L.; et al. Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017, 125, 075001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dadvand, M.J.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.; Esnaola, J.; Forns, X.; Basagaña, M.; Alvarez-Pedrerol, I.; Rivas, M.; López-Vicente, M.; De Castro Pascual, M.; Su, J.; et al. Sunyer, Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 7937–7942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Weinbrenner, H.; Breithut, J.; Hebermehl, W.; Kaufmann, A.; Klinger, T.; Palm, T.; Wirth, K. “The forest has become our new living room”—The critical importance of urban forests during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front. For. Glob. Change 2021, 4, 672909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rajoo, K.S.; Karam, D.S.; Abdu, A.; Rosli, Z.; Gerusu, G.J. Addressing psychosocial issues caused by the COVID-19 lockdown: Can urban greeneries help? Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 65, 127340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Maury-Mora, M.; Gómez-Villarino, M.T.; Varela-Martínez, C. Urban green spaces and stress during COVID-19 lockdown: A case study for the city of Madrid. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 69, 127492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hayes Hursh, S.; Perry, E.; Drake, D. What informs human–nature connection? An exploration of factors in the context of urban park visitors and wildlife. People Nat. 2024, 6, 230–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Koohsari, M.J.; Mavoa, S.; Villanueva, K.; Sugiyama, T.; Badland, H.; Kaczynski, A.T.; Owen, N.; Giles-Corti, B. Public open space, physical activity, urban design and public health: Concepts, methods and research agenda. Health Place 2015, 33, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gençay, G.; Birben, Ü. Striving for sustainability: Climate-Smart Forestry measures in Türkiye. Int. For. Rev. 2024, 26, 198–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rousseau, S.; Deschacht, N. Public awareness of nature and the environment during the COVID-19 crisis. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2020, 76, 1149–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Atalay, A.; Perkumiene, D.; Aleinikovas, M.; Škėma, M. Clean and sustainable environment problems in forested areas related to recreational activities: Case of Lithuania and Turkey. Front. Sports Act. Living 2024, 6, 1224932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Perkumienė, D.; Atalay, A.; Safaa, L.; Grigienė, J. Sustainable waste management for clean and safe environments in the recreation and tourism sector: A case study of Lithuania, Turkey and Morocco. Recycling 2023, 8, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lamhour, O.; El Bouazzaoui, I.; Perkumiené, D.; Safaa, L.; Aleinikovas, M.; Škėma, M. Groundwater and Tourism: Analysis of Research Topics and Trends. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pihkala, P. Anxiety and the ecological crisis: An analysis of eco-anxiety and climate anxiety. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ricciardi, E.; Spano, G.; Tinella, L.; Lopez, A.; Clemente, C.; Bosco, A.; Caffò, A.O. Perceived social support mediates the relationship between use of greenspace and geriatric depression: A cross-sectional study in a sample of south-Italian older adults. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vidal, D.G.; Teixeira, C.P.; Fernandes, C.O.; Olszewska-Guizzo, A.; Dias, R.C.; Vilaça, H.; Barros, N.; Maia, R.L. Patterns of human behaviour in public urban green spaces: On the influence of users’ profiles, surrounding environment, and space design. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 74, 127668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Saxena, A.; Dutta, A.; Fischer, H.W.; Saxena, A.K.; Jantz, P. Forest livelihoods and a “green recovery” from the COVID-19 pandemic: Insights and emerging research priorities from India. For. Policy Econ. 2021, 131, 102550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. González-Leonardo, M.; Rowe, F.; Fresolone-Caparrós, A. Rural revival? The rise in internal migration to rural areas during the COVID-19 pandemic: Who moved and Where? J. Rural. Stud. 2022, 96, 332–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Sandal, E.K.; Karademir, N. Determination of people’s expectations and consciousness with adequacy of green spaces in Kahramanmaraş. East. Geogr. Rev. 2013, 18, 155–176. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ertz, M.; Sarigöllü, E. The behavior-attitude relationship and satisfaction in proenvironmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 2019, 51, 1106–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Markevych, I.; Schoierer, J.; Hartig, T.; Chudnovsky, A.; Hystad, P.; Dzhambov, A.M.; De Vries, S.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Brauer, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; et al. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ. Res. 2017, 158, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 16 00786 g001
Figure 1. Map of the Belgrad Forest in İstanbul/Türkiye.
Figure 1. Map of the Belgrad Forest in İstanbul/Türkiye.
Forests 16 00786 g001
Forests 16 00786 g002
Figure 2. Scree plot of factor eigenvalues.
Figure 2. Scree plot of factor eigenvalues.
Forests 16 00786 g002
Forests 16 00786 g003
Figure 3. Factor correlation matrix.
Figure 3. Factor correlation matrix.
Forests 16 00786 g003
Table 1. Summary of demographic characteristics of participants (N: 400).
Table 1. Summary of demographic characteristics of participants (N: 400).
CategorySubgroups/GroupsPercentage (%)
DistrictEyüpsultan/Sarıyer53.3/46.8
GenderFemale/Male68.2/31.8
Age18–30/31–50/51–65/65+37.8/26.5/3.5/32.3
Education≤High School/Associate Degree/≥Bachelor’s Degree39.2/26.5/34.3
OccupationPublic sector Private sector/Retired/Other46.5/22.0/2.3/29.3
Household incomeLow/Lower–middle/Upper–middle/High39.0/24.5/3.8/32.8
Table 2. Summary of Participants’ Green Space Use (N: 400).
Table 2. Summary of Participants’ Green Space Use (N: 400).
CategorySubgroups/GroupsPercentage (%)
Weekly Duration<1 h/1–2 h/2–3 h/3–4 h/>4 h3.0/6.5/13.0/69.8/7.5
Main ActivityWalking, running, or biking/Resting/Exercising/Picnic/Playing/Pet walking/Reading11.3/1.3/2.5/0/1
Visit for Stress?Yes/No/Sometimes80.0/10.8/9.0
Feeling After VisitMore relaxed/Less stressed/More energetic/More peaceful8.2/11.0/4.8/13.8/13.5/6.0
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yıldızbaş, N.T.; Gençay, G.; Birben, Ü.; Oskay, F.; Perkumienė, D.; Škėma, M.; Aleinikovas, M. Benefits Beyond the Physical: How Urban Green Areas Shape Public Health and Environmental Awareness in Istanbul. Forests 2025, 16, 786. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050786

AMA Style

Yıldızbaş NT, Gençay G, Birben Ü, Oskay F, Perkumienė D, Škėma M, Aleinikovas M. Benefits Beyond the Physical: How Urban Green Areas Shape Public Health and Environmental Awareness in Istanbul. Forests. 2025; 16(5):786. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050786

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yıldızbaş, Nilay Tulukcu, Gökçe Gençay, Üstüner Birben, Funda Oskay, Dalia Perkumienė, Mindaugas Škėma, and Marius Aleinikovas. 2025. "Benefits Beyond the Physical: How Urban Green Areas Shape Public Health and Environmental Awareness in Istanbul" Forests 16, no. 5: 786. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050786

APA Style

Yıldızbaş, N. T., Gençay, G., Birben, Ü., Oskay, F., Perkumienė, D., Škėma, M., & Aleinikovas, M. (2025). Benefits Beyond the Physical: How Urban Green Areas Shape Public Health and Environmental Awareness in Istanbul. Forests, 16(5), 786. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050786

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop