Residents’ Perception of Urban Water System-Based Environmental Issues
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Are the participants aware of the ecological, socio-cultural, land use, technical engineering, and management problems?
- Are participants affected by the ecological, socio-cultural, land use, technical engineering, and management problems?
- Do participants’ awareness of these problems (ecological, socio-cultural, land use, technical engineering, and management) and their level of being affected differ according to their educational background?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Definition of the Research Area
2.2. Sample Size
2.3. Ethics Statement
2.4. Analytical Framework
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Profile of the Participants
3.2. The Awareness of the Participants about the Problems and Their Level of Being Affected
3.3. Participants’ Awareness of the Problems Depending on Their Education Level
3.4. Participants’ Level of Being Affected by the Problems, According to Their Education Level
3.5. Opinions of the Participants about the Study Area and Its Immediate Surroundings
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Effendi, H. River Water Quality Preliminary Rapid Assessment Using Pollution Index. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016, 33, 562–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halder, J.N.; Islam, M.N. Water Pollution and its Impact on the Human Health. J. Environ. Hum. 2015, 2, 36–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özeren Alkan, M.; Hepcan, Ş. Kent İçi Akarsu Koridorlarının Canlandırılması İzmir Kent Merkezi Örneği. In Proceedings of the TMMOB İzmir 2. Kent Sempozyumu-Kentine Sahip Çık, İzmir, Türkiye, 28–30 Kasım 2013; pp. 839–849. [Google Scholar]
- Hattapoğlu, M.Z. Su Olgusunun Yerleşmeler Evrimindeki Yeri ve günümüzde Bir Kentsel Tasarım Elemanı Olarak Yeniden Yorumlanması. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Anabilim Dalı Kentsel Tasarım. Master’s Thesis, Mimar Sinan Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye, 2004; 68p. [Google Scholar]
- Tekeli, E. Kentsel Dereler ve Peyzaj Onarımı: İstanbul Büyükçekmece Örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı Peyzaj Mimarlığı Programı. Master’s Thesis, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye, 2016; 220p. [Google Scholar]
- Etikala, B.; Madhavb, S.; Somagouni, S.G. Urban Water Systems: An Overview, Urban Water Crisis and Management Strategies for Sustainable Development; Srivastav, A.L., Madhav, S., Bhardwaj, A.K., Valsami-Jones, E., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; Volume 6, pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Nieuwenhuis, E.; Cuppen, E.; Langeveld, J. The role of integration for future urban water systems: Identifying Dutch urban water practitioners’ perspectives using Q methodology. Cities 2022, 126, 103659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, D.; Jin, Y.; Zhang, X. Environmental health risk assessment of urban water sources based on fuzzy set theory. Open Geosci. 2023, 15, 20220565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kılıç, S. Küresel İklim Değişikliği Sürecinde Su Yönetimi. İ.Ü. Sos. Bilim. Fakültesi Derg. 2008, 39, 161–186. [Google Scholar]
- Talat, N. Urban water-supply management: Indirect issues of climate change leading to water scarcity scenarios in developing and underdeveloped nations. In Water Conservation in the Era of Global Climate Change; Thokchom, B., Qiu, P., Singh, P., Iyer, P.K., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 47–71. [Google Scholar]
- Khatri, K.B.; Vairavamoorthy, K. Challenges for Urban Water Supply and Sanitation in the Developing Countries. Discussion Draft Paper, UNESCO–IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Ramirez, A.; Rosas, K.G.; Lugo, A.E.; Ramos-González, O.M. Spatio-Temporal Variation in Stream Water Chemistry in a Tropical Urban Watershed. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niemczynowicz, J. Urban Hydrology and Water Management-Present and Future. Urban Water 1999, 1, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, O.; Khalis, A. Urban water systems: Development of micro-level indicators to support integrated policy. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sever, H. Kentleşme Sürecinin Su Havzalarındaki Yerleşmelere Etkisi: Samandıra Örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Anabilim Dalı. Master’s Thesis, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye, 1997; 142p. [Google Scholar]
- Kılıçaslan, Ç. Akarsuların Kentsel Gelişme-Dönüşüm Süreci İçinde Çeşitli Kullanımlar Yönünden Etkileşimlerinin İzmir Kenti Örneğinde Ortaya Konulması. Doktora Tezi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı. Ph.D. Thesis, Ege Üniversitesi, İzmir, Türkiye, 2004; 206p. [Google Scholar]
- Kılıçaslan, Ç.; Özkan, M.B. Akarsuların kentsel gelişme-dönüşüm süreci içinde çeşitli kullanımlar yönünden etkileşimlerinin İzmir kenti örneğinde ortaya konulması. Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Derg. 2005, 42, 179–190. [Google Scholar]
- Kılıçaslan, Ç.; Özkan, B. Geçmişten Günümüze Meles Deresi. ZKÜ Bartın Orman Fakültesi Derg. 2006, 8, 51–59. [Google Scholar]
- Özeren, M. Yeşil Alt Yapı Sistemi Kapsamında Meles Deltası ve Çevresinin Kurgulanması. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı. Master’s Thesis, Ege Üniversitesi, İzmir, Türkiye, 2012; 125p. [Google Scholar]
- Özeren, M.; Kaplan, A. Yeşil Altyapı Sistemi Kapsamında Meles Deltası Ve Çevresinin Kurgulanması [Scenario Building For Meles Delta and Its Environs in the Context of “Green Infrastructure” System]. In Proceedings of the Peyzaj Mimarlığı 5. Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, Adana, Turkey, 14 November 2013; pp. 278–290. [Google Scholar]
- Malkoç, E.T.; Deniz, Ç.K.; Deniz, D.; Kenanoğlu, Z.; Alkan, M.Ö. Evaluation of urban water systems through ‘stream-user-city’ interactions: The example of Izmir Meles Stream. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 25, 8585–8599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liptrot, T.; Hussein, H. Between Regulation and Targeted Expropriation: Rural-to-Urban Groundwater Reallocation in Jordan. Water Altern. 2020, 13, 864–885. [Google Scholar]
- Cadoux, C.J. İlkçağ’da İzmir: Kentin, En Eski Çağlardan İ.S. 324’e Kadar Tarihi; Yayınları, İletişim, Ed.; Bilge Umar: İstanbul, Türkiye, 2003; 533p. [Google Scholar]
- Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TSI). Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Sonuçları. 2018. Available online: https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=95&locale=tr (accessed on 14 December 2018).
- Newbold, P. Statistics for Business and Economics; Prentice Hall International Editions: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1995; 867p. [Google Scholar]
- Miran, B. Temel İstatistik; Ege Üniversitesi Basımevi: İzmir, Türkiye, 2002; 288p, ISBN 975-93088-0-0. [Google Scholar]
- Benedict, S.; Hussein, H. An Analysis of Water Awareness Campaign Messaging in the Case of Jordan: Water Conservation for State Security. Water 2019, 11, 1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maddala, G.S. Introduction to Econometrics; Macmillan Publishing Company: New York, NY, USA, 1992; 631p. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, D.R.; Sweeney, D.J.; Williams, T.A. Statistics for Business and Economics; West Publishing Company: Eagan, MN, USA, 1996; 876p. [Google Scholar]
- Başar, A.; Oktay, E. Applied Statistics 2, 2nd ed.; Aktif Yayınevi: Erzurum, Turkey, 2000; 295p. [Google Scholar]
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed.; SAGE: Singapore, 2009; 821p. [Google Scholar]
- MASS. The Official Website of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. New Charles River Basin Projects. Available online: https://www.mass.gov/service-details/new-charles-river-basin-projects (accessed on 20 October 2022).
- IRF. Annual Report 2013/14; Reviving the World’s River; International River Foundation (IRF): Upper Drau, Australia; 18p.
- Access Water. Cities of the Future: An Urban River Park Transforms Singapore’s Water Infrastructure 2012. Available online: https://patexia.com/feed/cities-of-the-future-an-urban-river-park-is-transforming-singapore-s-water-infrastructure-3413 (accessed on 10 September 2020).
- The World Bank. Seoul’s Experience in Cultural Heritage, Sustainable Tourism, and Urban Regeration; Working Paper; The World Bank: Columbia, WA, USA, 2018; 164p. [Google Scholar]
- Özdemir, Z. Kentlerin akarsu ile bütünleşme sorunlarının planlama ve tasarım yönünden irdelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Anabilim Dalı. Master’s Thesis, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye, 2013; 297p. [Google Scholar]
- Önen, M. Kentsel kıyı mekanı olarak akarsuların rekreasyonel kullanım potansiyelinin irdelenmesi: Eskişehir Porsuk çayı ve İstanbul Kurbağalıdere örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı. Master’s Thesis, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye, 2007; 222p. [Google Scholar]
Demographic Characteristics | Class | General | |
---|---|---|---|
Number | % | ||
Gender | Female | 137 | 50.7 |
Male | 133 | 49.3 | |
Age | Under 30 | 71 | 26.3 |
30–39 | 63 | 23.3 | |
40–49 | 73 | 27.0 | |
50–59 | 34 | 12.6 | |
60+ | 29 | 10.7 | |
Min: 18, max: 78, mean: 39.76, standard deviation: 13.86 | |||
Educational Level | Under 5 years | 64 | 23.7 |
6–8 years | 55 | 20.4 | |
9–11 years | 92 | 34.0 | |
12 years+ | 59 | 21.9 | |
Min: 0, max: 18, mean: 9.76, standard deviation: 3.56 | |||
Working Status | Employed | 147 | 54.4 |
Unemployed | 123 | 45.6 | |
Household Income * | 3000 TRY/month and under | 65 | 24.1 |
3001–4000 TRY/month | 112 | 41.5 | |
4001–5000 TRY/month | 71 | 26.3 | |
5001 TRY/month and above | 22 | 8.1 | |
Min:1500 TRY, max: 7000 TRY, mean: 3925 TRY, standard deviation: 1023.63 TRY | |||
Length of Residence in İzmir | 0–5 years | 13 | 4.8 |
6–10 years | 14 | 5.2 | |
11–15 years | 14 | 5.2 | |
16 years+ | 75 | 27.8 | |
Since birth | 154 | 57.0 | |
Length of Residence in the Neighborhood | 0–5 years | 25 | 9.3 |
6–10 years | 28 | 10.4 | |
11–15 years | 18 | 6.7 | |
16 years+ | 67 | 24.8 | |
Since birth | 132 | 48.9 |
Awareness Average * | Affected Average ** | |
---|---|---|
Ecological Problems | ||
Water pollution | 3.43 | 3.53 |
Poor water quality | 3.60 | 3.31 |
Lack of flora and fauna | 3.15 | 2.92 |
Inability of the stream to create biological diversity | 3.14 | 2.97 |
Negative effects of water pollution on aquatic organisms and their cycles | 3.07 | 2.69 |
Decrease in the number of vegetation and animal species | 3.11 | 2.44 |
Increased risk of soil erosion | 2.98 | 3.01 |
Socio-Cultural Problems | ||
The stream and its surroundings do not enable use | 3.34 | 3.10 |
Public order problems | 3.83 | 3.63 |
Lack of lighting | 3.43 | 2.96 |
Encouraging illegal or unlawful use | 3.37 | 3.51 |
Seen as the source of many problems | 3.24 | 3.16 |
Considered dangerous | 3.80 | 3.47 |
Not knowing its value as a water system/underdeveloped awareness of conservation | 3.27 | 3.04 |
Lack of belonging to the stream and the region in which the stream is located | 2.73 | 2.62 |
The city has been erased from people’s memory | 3.04 | 2.49 |
The fact that the streams could not be integrated with the city and the daily life of the city | 3.08 | 2.79 |
Low environmental awareness of people living in the immediate surroundings | 3.30 | 3.10 |
Behaviors of people living/working nearby that increase the pollution problem | 3.45 | 3.36 |
Land use problems | ||
Creating physical pressure on the natural structure of the stream due to industry, residences, etc. | 3.01 | 2.81 |
The existence of a region with landslide risks in the immediate surrounding of the stream | 3.08 | 3.05 |
Because the historical structure of the stream and its surroundings have not been protected, it has not been integrated with other historical sites in the city | 3.16 | 2.73 |
Disconnection of the ecological connection between the Meles Delta and the Meles Stream | 3.14 | 2.38 |
Lack of continuity of the stream in the city/not being visible | 3.10 | 2.49 |
Lack of connection between the places along the banks of the Meles Stream | 2.94 | 2.48 |
Presence of unsafe, unused, and abandoned urban parts of the stream and its immediate surroundings | 3.49 | 3.26 |
Existence of living quarters and industrial facilities formed as a result of unplanned construction around the stream | 3.37 | 3.12 |
The problem that the region has turned into an undesirable area | 3.23 | 2.76 |
The fact that spatial solutions have not been proposed in the immediate surroundings of the stream that will respond to the increasing number of people in the near future | 3.24 | 2.77 |
The fact that the stream is not integrated with the planning system of the city | 2.77 | 2.70 |
The fact that the relationship between the stream system, the central parts of the city, and the Gulf of İzmir could not be established | 2.61 | 2.41 |
Technical Engineering Problems | Awareness Average * | Affected Average ** |
---|---|---|
Deterioration of the streamflow regime due to the change in the stream bed | 2.87 | 2.27 |
Enclosing the stream in a concrete canal from place to place/closing and taking it underground | 2.72 | 2.56 |
Since it is underground in some regions, the water trace cannot be followed, and the linear water system feature weakens | 2.84 | 2.57 |
Increased risk of flooding/overflowing | 2.90 | 2.89 |
Interventions to the stream bed negatively affect the urban natural ecosystem | 3.10 | 2.67 |
Infrastructure problems (such as electricity, drainage, and transportation) | 3.23 | 3.06 |
Management Problems | ||
Threat of water pollution to public health | 3.81 | 3.56 |
Existence of buildings that are perceived as unsafe in the immediate surroundings of the stream | 3.68 | 3.55 |
Existing roadway making access difficult | 3.54 | 3.35 |
Lack of transportation alternatives | 3.60 | 3.57 |
Almost no bike and walking paths | 3.93 | 3.69 |
Insufficient overpasses | 4.08 | 3.68 |
No stopping, waiting, or parking facilities on the stream coast | 3.65 | 3.09 |
The fact that the Meles Stream and its coast could not be connected with other open areas of the city | 3.34 | 3.04 |
Existence of a foul odor | 4.14 | 3.77 |
Visual pollution | 4.03 | 3.81 |
Water pollution (garbage, other solid waste, and organic/inorganic materials) | 4.01 | 3.80 |
Discomfort caused by the density of insects, flies, mosquitoes, and other pests in the area as a result of waste | 3.81 | 3.69 |
Having a negative impact on the image of the city | 3.78 | 3.60 |
Existence of visual pollution (due to water, waste, illegal structures, etc.) | 3.79 | 3.26 |
Insufficient knowledge of important historical heritage sites/lack of re-functioning | 2.93 | 2.63 |
The fact that while it was the symbol of the city of İzmir in the past, it cannot preserve its historical value today | 3.15 | 2.55 |
The fact that the Meles Stream, as a natural ecosystem, is not taken as a reference for the future of the city | 3.14 | 2.61 |
The negative impact of the pollution problems of the stream on residential and business areas | 3.43 | 3.40 |
The resolution of existing problems, such as pollution/odor/garbage, etc., turns into problems with increasing costs day by day | 2.83 | 2.70 |
Producing daily solutions for the studies carried out on the stream and its delta | 3.37 | 3.11 |
Presence of intensive illegal construction and wrong development practices in the stream bed | 3.63 | 3.05 |
Inadequacy of the measures taken/necessary to fight climate change | 2.62 | 2.37 |
The problem of buildings used as residences and workplaces in the stream bed | 3.14 | 2.36 |
Not considering the stream as part of the natural environment | 2.79 | 2.67 |
First Group | Second Group | Third Group | Fourth Group | General | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
≤5 years | 6–8 years | 9–11 years | 12 years+ | ||
Ecological Problems | |||||
Water pollution * | 3.81 | 3.58 | 3.20 | 3.24 | 3.43 |
Poor water quality * | 3.95 | 3.36 | 3.66 | 3.34 | 3.60 |
Lack of flora and fauna | 3.34 | 2.93 | 3.20 | 3.07 | 3.15 |
Inability of the stream to create biological diversity | 2.87 | 3.38 | 3.14 | 3.20 | 3.14 |
Negative effects of water pollution on aquatic organisms and their cycles | 2.98 | 3.31 | 3.05 | 2.98 | 3.07 |
Decrease in the number of vegetation and animal species | 2.97 | 3.15 | 3.03 | 3.37 | 3.11 |
Increased risk of soil erosion | 3.08 | 3.11 | 2.85 | 2.95 | 2.98 |
Socio-Cultural Problems | |||||
The stream and its surroundings do not enable use * | 3.19 | 3.33 | 3.78 | 2.81 | 3.34 |
Public order problems * | 4.02 | 4.18 | 3.80 | 3.32 | 3.83 |
Lack of lighting | 3.58 | 3.27 | 3.36 | 3.51 | 3.43 |
Encouraging illegal or unlawful use * | 3.70 | 3.13 | 3.32 | 3.34 | 3.37 |
Seen as the source of many problems | 3.22 | 3.29 | 3.07 | 3.47 | 3.24 |
Considered dangerous * | 3.78 | 3.47 | 3.78 | 4.14 | 3.80 |
Not knowing its value as a water system/underdeveloped awareness of conservation ** | 3.39 | 3.22 | 3.40 | 2.97 | 3.27 |
Lack of belonging to the stream and the region in which the stream is located * | 2.25 | 2.78 | 3.12 | 2.61 | 2.73 |
The city has been erased from people’s memory * | 2.70 | 3.33 | 3.22 | 2.86 | 3.04 |
The fact that the streams could not be integrated with the city and the daily life of the city ** | 2.75 | 3.24 | 3.12 | 3.24 | 3.08 |
Low environmental awareness of people living in the immediate surroundings | 3.13 | 3.64 | 3.16 | 3.41 | 3.30 |
Behaviors of people living/working nearby that increase the pollution problem * | 3.72 | 3.29 | 3.30 | 3.53 | 3.45 |
Land Use Problems | |||||
Creating physical pressure on the natural structure of the stream due to industry, residences, etc. | 2.80 | 3.15 | 3.05 | 3.03 | 3.01 |
Existence of a region with landslide risk in the immediate surroundings of the stream | 3.03 | 3.11 | 3.12 | 3.03 | 3.08 |
Because the historical structure of the stream and its surroundings have not been protected, it has not been integrated with other historical sites in the city ** | 3.33 | 3.27 | 3.11 | 2.95 | 3.16 |
Disconnection of the ecological connection between the Meles Delta and the Meles Stream | 2.86 | 3.24 | 3.33 | 3.05 | 3.14 |
Lack of continuity of the stream in the city/not being visible | 2.95 | 2.82 | 3.37 | 3.08 | 3.10 |
Lack of connection between the places along the banks of the Meles Stream | 3.05 | 2.87 | 2.91 | 2.93 | 2.94 |
Presence of unsafe, unused, and abandoned urban parts of the stream and its immediate surroundings * | 3.69 | 3.15 | 3.68 | 3.31 | 3.49 |
Existence of living quarters and industrial facilities formed as a result of unplanned construction around the stream | 3.59 | 3.20 | 3.40 | 3.22 | 3.37 |
The problem that the region has turned into an undesirable area | 3.16 | 3.07 | 3.43 | 3.14 | 3.23 |
The fact that spatial solutions have not been proposed in the immediate surroundings of the stream that will respond to the increasing number of users in the near future | 3.30 | 3.20 | 3.25 | 3.20 | 3.24 |
The fact that the stream is not integrated with the planning system of the city | 2.73 | 2.80 | 2.95 | 2.49 | 2.77 |
The fact that the relationship between the Stream system, the central parts of the city, and the Gulf of İzmir could not be established | 2.70 | 2.24 | 2.68 | 2.73 | 2.61 |
Technical Engineering Problems | |||||
Deterioration of the streamflow regime due to the change in the stream bed ** | 2.91 | 2.58 | 3.10 | 2.73 | 2.87 |
Enclosing the stream in a concrete canal from place to place/closing and taking it underground * | 2.27 | 2.62 | 3.08 | 2.76 | 2.72 |
Since it is underground in some regions, the water trace cannot be followed, and the linear water system feature weakens | 2.63 | 2.76 | 3.02 | 2.86 | 2.84 |
Increased risk of flooding/overflowing * | 2.48 | 3.11 | 2.92 | 3.10 | 2.90 |
Interventions to the stream bed negatively affect the urban natural ecosystem | 2.95 | 3.15 | 3.14 | 3.14 | 3.10 |
Infrastructure problems (such as electricity, drainage, and transportation) * | 3.37 | 3.02 | 3.45 | 2.92 | 3.23 |
Management Problems | |||||
Threat of water pollution to public health * | 4.28 | 3.89 | 3.66 | 3.44 | 3.81 |
Existence of buildings that are perceived as unsafe in the immediate surroundings of the stream | 3.94 | 3.64 | 3.48 | 3.76 | 3.68 |
Existing roadway making access difficult | 3.56 | 3.35 | 3.58 | 3.66 | 3.54 |
Lack of transportation alternatives | 3.77 | 3.67 | 3.46 | 3.56 | 3.60 |
Almost no bike and walking paths | 4.28 | 3.89 | 3.72 | 3.92 | 3.93 |
Insufficient overpasses * | 4.37 | 3.96 | 3.87 | 4.20 | 4.08 |
No stopping, waiting, or parking facilities on the stream coast | 3.77 | 3.44 | 3.63 | 3.75 | 3.65 |
The fact that the Meles Stream and its coast could not be connected with other open areas of the city * | 2.86 | 3.33 | 3.48 | 3.66 | 3.34 |
Existence of a foul odor * | 4.53 | 4.16 | 3.95 | 4.02 | 4.14 |
Visual pollution * | 4.34 | 4.11 | 3.90 | 3.83 | 4.03 |
Water pollution (garbage, other solid waste, and organic/inorganic materials) * | 4.23 | 3.96 | 3.74 | 4.22 | 4.01 |
Discomfort caused by the density of insects, flies, mosquitoes, and other pests in the area as a result of waste | 3.86 | 3.78 | 3.84 | 3.75 | 3.81 |
Having a negative impact on the image of the city | 3.88 | 3.89 | 3.80 | 3.53 | 3.78 |
Existence of visual pollution (due to water, waste, illegal structures, etc.) | 3.94 | 3.78 | 3.82 | 3.58 | 3.79 |
Insufficient knowledge of important historical heritage sites/lack of re-functioning | 2.69 | 3.04 | 2.95 | 3.05 | 2.93 |
The fact that while it was the symbol of the city of İzmir in the past, it cannot preserve its historical value today | 3.09 | 3.22 | 3.30 | 2.90 | 3.15 |
The fact that the Meles Stream, as a natural ecosystem, is not taken as a reference for the future of the city | 3.13 | 2.96 | 3.17 | 3.27 | 3.14 |
Negative impact of the pollution problems of the stream on residential and business areas * | 3.84 | 3.35 | 3.45 | 3.03 | 3.43 |
The resolution of existing problems, such as pollution/odor/garbage, etc., turns into problems with increasing costs day by day | 2.58 | 2.67 | 2.92 | 3.12 | 2.83 |
Producing daily solutions for the studies carried out on the stream and its delta | 3.56 | 3.44 | 3.26 | 3.27 | 3.37 |
Presence of intensive illegal construction and wrong development practices in the stream bed | 3.56 | 3.65 | 3.67 | 3.59 | 3.63 |
Inadequacy of the measures taken/necessary to fight climate change * | 2.33 | 2.27 | 2.73 | 3.10 | 2.62 |
The problem of buildings used as residences and workplaces in the stream bed ** | 2.91 | 3.24 | 3.01 | 3.51 | 3.14 |
Not considering the stream as part of the natural environment ** | 2.39 | 2.85 | 2.97 | 2.88 | 2.79 |
First Group | Second Group | Third Group | Fourth Group | General | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
≤5 years | 6–8 years | 9–11 years | 12 years+ | ||
Ecological Problems | |||||
Water pollution * | 3.92 | 3.62 | 3.21 | 3.54 | 3.53 |
Poor water quality * | 3.84 | 2.87 | 3.30 | 3.15 | 3.31 |
Lack of flora and fauna | 3.22 | 2.76 | 2.78 | 2.97 | 2.92 |
Inability of the stream to create biological diversity | 2.81 | 3.11 | 2.90 | 3.10 | 2.97 |
Negative effects of water pollution on aquatic organisms and their cycles | 2.81 | 2.73 | 2.76 | 2.42 | 2.69 |
Decrease in the number of vegetation and animal species * | 1.80 | 2.55 | 2.72 | 2.63 | 2.44 |
Increased risk of soil erosion * | 2.59 | 3.33 | 3.05 | 3.10 | 3.01 |
Socio-Cultural Problems | |||||
The stream and its surroundings do not enable use | 3.13 | 3.18 | 3.20 | 2.85 | 3.10 |
Public order problems * | 3.92 | 3.76 | 3.60 | 3.25 | 3.63 |
Lack of lighting | 2.95 | 2.76 | 3.02 | 3.05 | 2.96 |
Encouraging illegal or unlawful use * | 4.11 | 3.18 | 3.25 | 3.58 | 3.51 |
Seen as the source of many problems | 3.20 | 3.11 | 3.00 | 3.42 | 3.16 |
Considered dangerous * | 3.75 | 3.16 | 3.47 | 3.44 | 3.47 |
Not knowing its value as a water system/underdeveloped awareness of conservation ** | 3.38 | 2.73 | 3.27 | 2.61 | 3.04 |
Lack of belonging to the stream and the region in which the stream is located | 2.59 | 2.65 | 2.74 | 2.44 | 2.62 |
The city has been erased from people’s memory * | 2.50 | 2.45 | 2.73 | 2.14 | 2.49 |
The fact that the streams could not be integrated with the city and the daily life of the city ** | 2.61 | 3.07 | 2.84 | 2.64 | 2.79 |
Low environmental awareness of people living in the immediate surroundings * | 2.50 | 3.42 | 3.21 | 3.31 | 3.10 |
Behaviors of people living/working nearby that increase the pollution problem ** | 3.59 | 3.16 | 3.34 | 3.31 | 3.36 |
Land Use Problems | |||||
Creating physical pressure on the natural structure of the stream due to industries, residences, etc. | 2.87 | 2.73 | 2.88 | 2.71 | 2.81 |
Existence of a region with landslide risk in the immediate surroundings of the stream | 2.86 | 3.07 | 3.13 | 3.10 | 3.05 |
Because the historical structure of the stream and its surroundings have not been protected, it has not been integrated with other historical sites in the city | 2.72 | 2.87 | 2.77 | 2.56 | 2.73 |
Disconnection of the ecological connection between the Meles Delta and the Meles Stream | 2.38 | 2.44 | 2.45 | 2.22 | 2.38 |
Lack of continuity of the stream in the city/not being visible | 2.36 | 2.31 | 2.53 | 2.71 | 2.49 |
Lack of connection between the places along the banks of the Meles Stream | 2.33 | 2.40 | 2.52 | 2.64 | 2.48 |
Presence of unsafe, unused, and abandoned urban parts of the stream and its immediate surroundings | 3.27 | 3.38 | 3.35 | 3.00 | 3.26 |
Existence of living quarters and industrial facilities formed as a result of unplanned construction around the stream * | 3.34 | 2.87 | 3.26 | 2.88 | 3.12 |
The problem that the region has turned into an undesirable area | 2.55 | 2.78 | 2.89 | 2.78 | 2.76 |
The fact that spatial solutions have not been proposed in the immediate surroundings of the stream that will respond to the increasing number of people in the near future ** | 2.55 | 2.85 | 3.03 | 2.54 | 2.77 |
The fact that the stream is not integrated with the planning system of the city * | 2.48 | 2.87 | 3.00 | 2.29 | 2.70 |
The fact that the relationship between the Stream system, the central parts of the city, and the Gulf of İzmir could not be established ** | 2.33 | 2.09 | 2.57 | 2.54 | 2.41 |
Technical Engineering Problems | |||||
Deterioration of the streamflow regime due to the change in the stream bed | 2.19 | 2.40 | 2.30 | 2.17 | 2.27 |
Enclosing the stream in a concrete canal from place to place/closing and taking it underground | 2.30 | 2.42 | 2.80 | 2.59 | 2.56 |
Since it is underground in some regions, the water trace cannot be followed, and the linear water system feature weakens * | 2.06 | 2.51 | 2.98 | 2.53 | 2.57 |
Increased risk of flooding/overflowing | 2.63 | 2.89 | 2.91 | 3.15 | 2.89 |
Interventions to the stream bed negatively affect the urban natural ecosystem * | 2.28 | 2.67 | 2.85 | 2.83 | 2.67 |
Infrastructure problems (such as electricity, drainage, and transportation) | 3.02 | 2.71 | 3.27 | 3.12 | 3.06 |
Management Problems | |||||
Threat of water pollution to public health * | 3.98 | 3.60 | 3.39 | 3.34 | 3.56 |
Existence of buildings that are perceived as unsafe in the immediate surroundings of the stream | 3.88 | 3.53 | 3.33 | 3.58 | 3.55 |
Existing roadway making access difficult | 3.19 | 3.18 | 3.41 | 3.58 | 3.35 |
Lack of transportation alternatives | 3.88 | 3.24 | 3.55 | 3.58 | 3.57 |
Almost no bike and walking paths | 3.72 | 3.51 | 3.73 | 3.76 | 3.69 |
Insufficient overpasses * | 4.08 | 3.36 | 3.80 | 3.36 | 3.68 |
No stopping, waiting, or parking facilities on the stream coast | 2.94 | 3.02 | 3.21 | 3.14 | 3.09 |
The fact that the Meles Stream and its coast could not be connected with other open areas of the city * | 2.62 | 2.89 | 3.09 | 3.56 | 3.04 |
Existence of a foul odor * | 4.16 | 3.58 | 3.71 | 3.64 | 3.77 |
Visual pollution * | 4.13 | 3.73 | 3.58 | 3.92 | 3.81 |
Water pollution (garbage, other solid waste, and organic/inorganic materials) * | 4.20 | 3.53 | 3.67 | 3.80 | 3.80 |
Discomfort caused by the density of insects, flies, mosquitoes, and other pests in the area as a result of waste * | 4.06 | 3.73 | 3.66 | 3.29 | 3.69 |
Having a negative impact on the image of the city * | 4.12 | 3.53 | 3.48 | 3.29 | 3.60 |
Existence of visual pollution (due to water, waste, illegal structures, etc.) * | 3.17 | 2.87 | 3.40 | 3.49 | 3.26 |
Insufficient knowledge of important historical heritage sites/lack of re-functioning * | 2.08 | 2.60 | 2.79 | 2.98 | 2.63 |
The fact that while it was the symbol of the city of İzmir in the past, it cannot preserve its historical value today * | 2.34 | 2.51 | 2.92 | 2.24 | 2.55 |
The fact that the Meles Stream, as a natural ecosystem, is not taken as a reference for the future of the city | 2.53 | 2.58 | 2.55 | 2.83 | 2.61 |
Negative impact of the pollution problems of the stream on residential and business areas * | 3.70 | 3.07 | 3.50 | 3.22 | 3.40 |
The resolution of existing problems, such as pollution/odor/garbage, etc., turns into problems with increasing costs day by day * | 2.25 | 2.45 | 3.14 | 2.73 | 2.70 |
Producing daily solutions for the studies carried out on the stream and its delta ** | 3.09 | 2.84 | 3.12 | 3.36 | 3.11 |
Presence of intensive illegal construction and wrong development practices in the stream bed ** | 3.33 | 3.09 | 2.92 | 2.92 | 3.05 |
Inadequacy of the measures taken/necessary to fight climate change * | 2.17 | 1.73 | 2.62 | 2.78 | 2.37 |
The problem of buildings used as residences and workplaces in the stream bed * | 1.89 | 2.62 | 2.55 | 2.32 | 2.36 |
Not considering the stream as part of the natural environment * | 2.23 | 2.64 | 3.03 | 2.61 | 2.67 |
No Effect (1) | Minor Effect (2) | Neutral (3) | Moderate Effect (4) | Major Effect (5) | Average | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBB | 8 (%3.0) | 17 (%6.3) | 38 (%14.1) | 156 (%57.8) | 51(%18.9) | 3.83 |
IZSU | 10 (%3.7) | 9 (%3.3) | 95 (%35.2) | 117 (%43.3) | 39 (%14.4) | 3.62 |
Buca Municipality | 27 (%10.0) | 32 (%11.9) | 64 (%23.7) | 78 (%28.9) | 69 (%25.6) | 3.48 |
Konak Municipality | 19 (%7.0) | 14 (%5.2) | 96 (%35.6) | 124 (%45.9) | 17 (%6.3) | 3.39 |
Karabağlar Municipality | 32 (%11.9) | 20 (%7.4) | 87 (%32.2) | 86 (%31.9) | 45 (%16.7) | 3.34 |
NGO | 28 (%10.4) | 26 (%9.6) | 80 (%29.6) | 100 (%37.0) | 36 (%13.3) | 3.33 |
Universities | 46 (%17.0) | 15 (%5.6) | 98 (%36.3) | 88 (%32.6) | 23 (%8.5) | 3.10 |
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kenanoğlu, Z.; Malkoç True, E.; Kılıçaslan Deniz, Ç.; Deniz, B.; Özeren Alkan, M. Residents’ Perception of Urban Water System-Based Environmental Issues. Water 2024, 16, 1846. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16131846
Kenanoğlu Z, Malkoç True E, Kılıçaslan Deniz Ç, Deniz B, Özeren Alkan M. Residents’ Perception of Urban Water System-Based Environmental Issues. Water. 2024; 16(13):1846. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16131846
Chicago/Turabian StyleKenanoğlu, Zerrin, Emine Malkoç True, Çiğdem Kılıçaslan Deniz, Bülent Deniz, and Merve Özeren Alkan. 2024. "Residents’ Perception of Urban Water System-Based Environmental Issues" Water 16, no. 13: 1846. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16131846
APA StyleKenanoğlu, Z., Malkoç True, E., Kılıçaslan Deniz, Ç., Deniz, B., & Özeren Alkan, M. (2024). Residents’ Perception of Urban Water System-Based Environmental Issues. Water, 16(13), 1846. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16131846