Bursa is one of the cities with high disaster risk and a quality housing problem in Turkey. Urban transformation activities are carried out in order to improve quality of life and create safe living spaces for sustainable urban development. Quality housing production does not signify merely a need to be satisfied quantitatively. Housing and its environment, where physical and social needs of the users are satisfied, should be designed considering local conditions and in a way that they will be suitable for users’ life styles and cultural habits. In this study, the selected study area comprises neighborhoods which are under disaster risk, have been determined as urban transformation areas, and have residents with similar socioeconomic characteristics. With the purpose of improving user satisfaction, this study investigates users’ experience with physical, social, and cultural features of housing and its environment, which identify the quality of housing, and their preferences of new housing units to be produced. Nonprobability sampling method was selected for the field study, and a survey study was conducted. SPSS 17.0 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) was employed for data entry. In order to generate data for quality housing production, relationships between variables were analyzed with Pearson chi-square test.
In recent years, significant changes in the international approaches and policies on urban risk were performed, and the need for disaster risk reduction for sustainable development was highlighted. With the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, sustainable development became a basic policy, the significance of which was recognized worldwide. The most significant contribution of Rio Conference to the concept of sustainable development is the emphasis on the need for the participation and initiative of local government units, nongovernmental organizations, private sector organizations, and individuals beside central government units in the decisions and implementations on political, economical, and social planes for the implementation of the concept of sustainable development [
Participation is a voluntary act that occurs when people become conscious of the value of participatory action and deem it desirable to become involved in the different activities undertaken in a participatory project or initiative [
In almost every city in Turkey, there are economically, socially, and environmentally deteriorated living spaces which lack quality and which did not come about in accordance with planned or orderly urbanization. The relation between disaster and city must be requestioned, quality of urban life must be improved, and urban transformation activities must be carried out to create safe living spaces in these areas. To create sustainable urban spaces in urban transformation applications, it is important that residents take part in the decision-making process and put forward their demands and expectations, legal and institutional processes be managed properly, and housing units be designed and built according to user needs, lifestyles, and local conditions.
After the 1999 Marmara Earthquake, efforts to create safer urban living spaces intensified in Turkey. To this end, urban transformation work, which commenced in previous years, began to gain its place on the agenda in 2000s. One of the most significant steps towards legitimatizing urban transformation was “Municipal Law” number 5393 of 2005. Article 69 of the law titled “land and housing production” and Article 73 titled “urban transformation and development” cover regulations on urban renewal [
Reinforcement of sustainable lifestyles and social relationships depends largely on the design of the physical environment [
Bursa is one of the cities with high disaster risk and shortage of quality housing in Turkey. The main purpose of this study is to produce information that will be employed to improve quality of life and housing quality in the context of urban development in Bursa. Through getting users’ opinions on how housing and its environment are used in disaster risk areas where urban transformation will be implemented, this study has investigated the following: how housing and its environment can be changed in a way to become a desirable place to live and to improve quality of life, how physical, social, and cultural needs can be considered as a whole so as to ensure “conformity” between housing and its environment and user needs.
The study was built on conceptual explanations and fieldwork. The stages of the research were selecting the areas in which to conduct the survey, preparing the survey questions, and conducting and evaluating the survey. Within the conceptual research, factors affecting the housing quality were examined by means of literature review. In field research, a total of four neighborhoods were chosen in two central districts of Bursa: two neighborhoods (Alacahırka and Pınarbaşı) in Osmangazi and two (Hocataşkın and Meydancık) in Yıldırım. These are neighborhoods that were determined as disaster risk areas and urban transformation areas by the local and central administration. There are housing units built by individuals and private sector, and the residents have similar socioeconomic characteristics. The convenience sampling method, a nonprobability sampling method, was employed for selecting the respondents for the survey, and sample size is 5% based on the population size in the study areas. To carry out field research, the survey was conducted in 740 housing units. The survey questions were aimed at physical and sociocultural evaluation of housing and its environment and determining users’ value judgments and level of satisfaction. The questionnaire comprises three parts: the first part contains descriptive information about the household; the second part poses questions regarding the housing that the respondents presently reside in and its environment; and the questions in the third part inquire information about the respondents’ housing preferences. SPSS 17.0 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) was employed for data entry. In order to generate data for quality housing production, relationships between variables were analyzed with Pearson chi-square test.
Improving the physical, spatial, and social quality and quality of life in the built environment from single building scale to a citywide scale underlies sustainable development. Urban transformation practices are implemented in the world and in Turkey in line with these objectives. To ensure sustainable development, it is vital to determine the needs and expectations in different areas of the urban space and different segments of society and which tools to be employed in meeting these needs. Quality of life research is used as a tool for implementing sustainable practices that rely on policies based on scientific data in the fields of urban transformation and planning and design of housing areas [
Quality of life, which involves the concepts of life and quality, is focused on “human” [
Housing, which is defined as the living space of an individual, is one of the most significant factors contributing to individual’s quality of life [
Assessment of physical features, facilities, services, and environment makes up objective measurement of housing, while subjective measurement deals with psychosocial aspects of an individual such as perception, satisfaction, needs, and disappointment [
Within the context of humans’ interaction with their housing and environment, examining the housing and determining user evaluations and preferences will enable making designs shaped according to local sensitivities and determining spatial needs and qualities of housing that are suited to life values. It will also contribute to developing alternative solutions which are proper in terms of quality and quantity within user-housing and user-environment relationships and which ensure sustainable development and quality of life in a new housing production process. It is necessary to assess housing quality to determine whether it is suitable for the users’ family and cultural norms [
Various studies are available in literature in which housing and its immediate environment are evaluated by users and their preferences are determined [
In the study, while examining qualitative values of the housing units, the above-mentioned indicators were grouped, and determination of objective attributes of housing was based on two basic parameters. These parameters are “physical features” of housing and its environment and “social interaction features” which support the former. Both parameters were defined under subtitles within themselves, which are presented in Table
Objective attributes determining housing quality.
Objective attributes of residential environment | ||
|
||
Physical features/attributes/characteristics | Social interaction features | |
|
||
Spatial features of housing | Features of the immediate residential environment | Sociocultural facilities provided by the settlement, quality of social environment |
|
||
General description of housing (type of housing, exposure, and number of rooms) | Adequacy of immediate residential environment (physical environmental conditions (noise, stench, polluted air, privacy, security-theft, ugly image, and high tension-base station), proximity to certain places, main reason for residing in that neighborhood, adequacy of recreational facilities in the immediate residential environment) | Social infrastructure and open space (open space use, recreational facilities for youth and children) |
|
||
Interior spatial features of housing (average size, cupboards/cabinets, and storage) | Municipal services (urban infrastructure: sewer system, clear water, power line, natural gas, roads, environmental health: garbage removal, cleanliness) | Recreational facilities |
|
||
Use of indoor spaces and spatial performance (what the spaces are used for, size, daylight—lightening, ventilation, heating, and sound insulation performance) | Disaster resistance | Neighbor relations |
|
||
Comfort features of housing (thermal insulation, leakage-dampness-smirch, privacy, light, noise, structural safety, safety—security, installations, natural air circulation, fire escape, and shelter) | Transportation | Lifestyle habits such as customs and traditions in the housing and environment |
|
||
Aesthetics (how the housing is perceived, aesthetics of the housing) |
Bursa is one of the cities which experienced rapid industrialization and urbanization process. With the initialization of planned development period in Turkey, significant developments on the way towards industrialization that took place in Bursa caused a large number of people to migrate from rural to urban areas. Individuals with low income provided themselves with shelters on parcels with shared ownership land registry or on unhealthy slum areas. Houses were built adjacent to each other with almost no gap between them, and they were generally multistory buildings. Settlements were not designed according to a plan. Today, there are numerous illegal settlements on Bursa Plain, on the Southern part of the city, and on the outskirts of Mount Uludağ. The settlements chosen for this study are all located on the slopes of Mount Uludağ and in Bursa Plain. They are settlement areas which had been formed with similar developments over time. They feature disorderly constructed multistory buildings.
Alacahırka, Pınarbaşı, Hocataşkın, and Meydancık neighborhoods are located in the old settlement areas in Bursa. Alacahırka and Pınarbaşı neighborhoods are close to Hisariçi settlement area and the city center, also known as Hanlar Bölgesi (Caravansaries Area). Hocataşkın and Meydancık neighborhoods are near a historical area known as Yeşil and Emir Sultan, and there are many examples of civil architecture and public buildings of monumental value within their vicinity. These settlements are all located on the slopes of Mount Uludağ, and they feature disorderly constructed multistory buildings. The settlements are areas where families of lower-middle and middle income group reside. According to data from address based census in 2013 by Turkish Statistical Institute, the populations of Alacahırka, Pınarbaşı, Hocataşkın, and Meydancık are 4553, 2724, 1747, and 2659, respectively.
In this study, neighborhoods which are under disaster risk and have been determined as urban transformation areas were selected as the universe. Nonprobability convenience sampling method was chosen for field study due to time and cost constraints. The survey study was conducted in a total of four neighborhoods in two central districts of Bursa: two neighborhoods (Alacahırka and Pınarbaşı) in Osmangazi and two (Hocataşkın and Meydancık) in Yıldırım. These neighborhoods were selected based on the fact that they are located in the city center of Bursa and they are old settlement areas. Random samples of 5% were drawn according to the population of each neighborhood in the study areas. 740 questionnaires were carried out: 254 in Alacahırka, 176 in Pınarbaşı, 129 in Hocataşkın, and 181 in Meydancık. The data obtained in order to determine user preferences in quality housing production were analyzed with Pearson chi-square test.
As information about users is significant for housing design, residents of the settlements that were examined within the research were described. The sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the survey participants are as follows: 48.2% are female, 51.8% are male, and 63.3% are married. Regarding the household size, 36.2% have a household of 4 persons and 16.2% have a household of 5 persons. As for the number of children in the family, 31.5% have three children and 29.7% have two children. Almost all of the respondents are employed. In 50.2% of the families, only one person in the family has a job, and in 37.8% two persons work. The unemployed make up 4.3%. Almost all of the respondents are literate. The proportion of illiterate ones is only 1.2%. 66.8% of the respondents are owner-occupiers. Level of income is significant to the quality of the housing. The mean income level per month is
For sustainable urban development and quality of life it is vital to create a physical environment in which physical and psychosocial needs of humans are satisfied on the scale of both settlement and housing unit. Meeting spatial needs of humans in the housing unit and its environment and arrangements that enable social interaction are significant for increasing housing satisfaction. To this end, needs and expectations of the society and individuals were researched. In the study, housing units were examined to determine qualitative values of the housing units.
Within the scope of this study, general information about the housing was obtained, and an evaluation of the housing based on a scale of 1 to 5 was made to determine the level of satisfaction. Regarding the general features of the current housing unit, the survey results show that a large proportion of the participants live in apartments in single apartment buildings (44.7%), with two facades (50.2%), 90–120 m2 with a living room and three bedrooms (54.7%), facing east (30.6%), and being heated with a floor standing boiler (39.8%) (Figure
Overall description of housing.
According to survey data, residents are satisfied with the type of housing (51.4%), housing size (46.8%), number of rooms (54.7%), exposure (47.6%), number of facades (50.2%), heating system (42.4%), and housing design (53.5%).
According to the Pearson chi-square statistics, there is a significant relationship between household income and housing type (
It was determined that there is relationship between number of rooms and household income (
According to average housing size and household size crosstab (Table
Average housing size and household size crosstab.
Average | Household size | 6 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
Less than 50 m2 | Count | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 11 |
% |
|
9.1% |
|
9.1% |
|
100.0% | |
|
|||||||
50–90 m2 | Count | 8 | 23 | 27 | 53 | 29 | 140 |
% | 5.7% | 16.4% | 19.3% |
|
20.7% | 100.0% | |
|
|||||||
90–120 m2 | Count | 12 | 31 | 97 | 123 | 69 | 332 |
% | 3.6% | 9.3% | 29.2% |
|
20.8% | 100.0% | |
|
|||||||
120–150 m2 | Count | 3 | 11 | 36 | 57 | 45 | 152 |
% | 2.0% | 7.2% | 23.7% |
|
29.6% | 100.0% | |
|
|||||||
150–180 m2 | Count | 1 | 3 | 14 | 17 | 19 | 54 |
% | 1.9% | 5.6% | 25.9% | 31.5% |
|
100.0% | |
|
|||||||
Total | Count | 27 | 69 | 177 | 251 | 165 | 689 |
% | 3.9% | 10.0% | 25.7% | 36.4% | 23.9% | 100.0% |
(a) Size of interior spaces. (b) Size of interior spaces.
Satisfaction with the size of interior spaces.
According to the survey data, the lounge is used for entertaining guests (64.9%) and sitting (14.4%); the living room is used for watching television (43.4%) and sitting (42.8%); the bedrooms are used for sleeping (children’s bedroom 55.8%, master bedroom 95.3%); the kitchen is used for cooking (62.6%) and eating (34.2); the bathroom is used for bathing (93.5%); the terrace (48.4%) and the garden (50.4%) are used for sitting in summer; and the attic is used for storing (33.3%) and sitting (20%) in summer.
(a) Evaluation of comfort features of housing. (b) Evaluation of comfort features of housing.
According to Pearson chi-square statistic, thermal insulation of the housing unit (
Crosstab shows that 53.4% of those living in modern buildings are very satisfied; 53.7% of those living in traditional buildings are satisfied; 43.6% of those living in ordinary buildings are satisfied, while 33.4% of those living in buildings with no aesthetic features are neutrally satisfied with the housing (Table
Architectural aesthetics of the housing and housing satisfaction crosstab.
Architectural | Satisfaction with architectural aesthetics | Total | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
aesthetics | Very dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Neutral | Satisfied | Very satisfied | ||
Modern | Count | 3 | 3 | 9 | 26 | 47 | 88 |
% | 3.4% | 3.4% | 10.2% | 29.5% |
|
100.0% | |
|
|||||||
Traditional | Count | 4 | 1 | 7 | 36 | 19 | 67 |
% | 6.0% | 1.5% | 10.4% |
|
28.4% | 100.0% | |
|
|||||||
Ordinary | Count | 13 | 28 | 150 | 188 | 52 | 431 |
% | 3.0% | 6.5% | 34.8% |
|
12.1% | 100.0% | |
|
|||||||
No aesthetics | Count | 18 | 21 | 38 | 20 | 16 | 113 |
% | 15.9% | 18.6% |
|
17.7% | 14.2% | 100.0% | |
|
|||||||
Total | Count | 38 | 53 | 204 | 270 | 134 | 699 |
% | 5.4% | 7.6% | 29.2% | 38.6% | 19.2% | 100.0% |
Users having a monthly household income of over
Architectural aesthetics of the housing and household income crosstab.
Architectural | Monthly household income | Total | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
aesthetics | Minimum wage | 680–1000 | 1001–1500 | 1501–2000 | 2001 and above | ||
Modern | Count | 0 | 8 | 8 | 30 | 42 | 88 |
% | .0% | 9.1% | 9.1% | 34.1% |
|
100.0% | |
|
|||||||
Traditional | Count | 5 | 13 | 18 | 17 | 14 | 67 |
% | 7.5% | 19.4% |
|
25.4% | 20.9% | 100.0% | |
|
|||||||
Ordinary | Count | 25 | 63 | 122 | 103 | 116 | 429 |
% | 5.8% | 14.7% |
|
24.0% | 27.0% | 100.0% | |
|
|||||||
No aesthetics | Count | 16 | 25 | 22 | 20 | 30 | 113 |
% | 14.2% | 22.1% | 19.5% | 17.7% |
|
100.0% | |
|
|||||||
Total | Count | 46 | 109 | 170 | 170 | 202 | 697 |
% | 6.6% | 15.6% | 24.4% | 24.4% | 29.0% | 100.0% |
While survey participants state that they are satisfied with certain design factors (type of housing, number of facades, housing size, number of rooms, exposure, heating system, and design) which affect satisfaction, at the same time they state that they are not satisfied with the housing. This suggests that users find the housing units adequate in terms of size, dimensions, and meeting their needs, and they are happy to own the housing; but on the other hand, they have expectations for better spaces as a social need.
Those who are very satisfied with the housing and are homeowners make up 77.9%; those who are satisfied with the housing and are homeowners make up 74.3%; those who are neutrally satisfied with the housing and are homeowners make up 56.5%; and those who are not satisfied with the housing and are tenants make up 53.2% (Table
Housing satisfaction and ownership crosstab.
Housing | Ownership status | Total | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
satisfaction | Homeowner | Tenant | Public housing and free tenant | ||
Very satisfied | Count | 74 | 17 | 4 | 95 |
% |
|
17.9% | 4.2% | 100.0% | |
|
|||||
Satisfied | Count | 263 | 84 | 7 | 354 |
% |
|
23.7% | 2.0% | 100.0% | |
|
|||||
Neutral | Count | 105 | 78 | 3 | 186 |
% |
|
41.9% | 1.6% | 100.0% | |
|
|||||
Dissatisfied | Count | 20 | 25 | 2 | 47 |
% | 42.6% |
|
4.3% | 100.0% | |
|
|||||
Total | Count | 462 | 204 | 16 | 682 |
% | 67.7% | 29.9% | 2.3% | 100.0% |
Regarding adequacy of immediate housing environment, participants were asked dichotomous questions that ask for a yes/no response. Within this scope, it was determined that on the whole there are no problems about noise, stench, polluted air, privacy, security-theft, ugly image, and high tension-base station, all of which were mentioned under the heading of physical environmental conditions (Figure
Adequacy of immediate housing environment.
Within the context of the main reason for residing in the neighborhood (Figure
According to Pearson chi-square statistics, lack of noise (
In the study, 50% of the participants stated that they own a car, and 65.5% experience parking lot problems. The means of transport available in the immediate housing environment for accessing the city center or other areas are as follows, in order of preference: buses (100%), taxis (90.1%), pedestrian walks (75.3%), minibuses (69.2%), the rail system (44%), and cycle lanes as the least preferred (33.5%).
As for the evaluation of vehicles for access to city center and other important spots, participants are satisfied on the whole. Participants are satisfied with buses (45.7), minibuses (47.1), taxis (49.1), cycle lanes (30.2%), and pedestrian walks (47.1%). 41.8% of the participants stated that they are very satisfied with the rail system which is a newly developing means of transport in Bursa.
Survey participants stated that there are gardens (57.7%) and open spaces (61.8%) in the housing environment and that they are mostly satisfied with the use of them. According to the survey data, open spaces are used effectively. In order of importance, open spaces are used for sitting-resting (79.4%), playgrounds (68.3%), parking areas (62.1%), and gardens (61.8%). Regarding satisfaction with the use of open spaces, participants are satisfied with the use of open spaces as a garden (36.9%), parking lot (34.9%), sports areas (32.7%), atelier (45.5%), and playground (45.5%), for sitting-resting (45.7%) and social activity (33%). The research showed that children play in the street. Friendship that children make while playing in the street will help them develop social relations, contribute to neighbor relations, and improve the sense of belonging to a community.
According to chi-square statistic, there is a relationship between satisfaction with the open spaces in the housing environment and housing satisfaction (
According to chi-square statistic, there is a significant relationship between satisfaction with the garden in the immediate housing environment and age (
It is seen that youth and children are satisfied with the facilities that the housing and its environment offer (Figure
Recreational facilities for youth and children.
Adequacy of social facilities in immediate housing environment.
According to data from the participants, among the most commonly used facilities, primary schools rank first, supermarkets rank second, and religious facilities rank third.
According to chi-square statistic, there is a significant relationship between satisfaction with the parks in the immediate housing environment and housing satisfaction (
Neighbor relations.
Participants’ wish to move home if they have the financial means, description of the preferred housing, and preferred sociocultural facilities were investigated based on participants’ views.
43% of the participants wish to move house if they have the financial means, while 42.6% do not. The top three reasons for wanting to move are that participants need a large and comfortable home (32.3%), dream of a better housing unit (20%), and want a different housing type (18.2%) (Figure
Comments on wanting to move.
If the participants had better financial means, the ideal housing unit would be in the city center (34%), and the preferred housing type would be a detached house with a garden. Participants prefer a 120–150 m2 housing unit (38.3%), with a lounge and three rooms (41%), heated with a floor standing boiler (45.5%). The preferred apartment building is a 2- or 3-story (38.3%) apartment building with 2 housing units on each story (53.1%).
The top three features of the location of preferred housing are as follows, in order of preference: easy access to the city center (69.7%), proximity to the workplace (39.6%), and health facilities (36.4%). Shopping facilities (26.4%) and security (21.6) rank fourth and fifth in the list, respectively.
Participants were asked for their views on the upsides and downsides of living in an apartment building and in a detached house. Respondents suggested “security (36.6%)” and “having people around (26.3%)” as the advantages and “noise (43.6%)” and “difficulty in making a decision (39.1%)” as the disadvantages of living in an apartment building. As for living in a detached house, “comfort (67.1%),” “privacy (22.7%),” and “quietness (67.1%)” were suggested as advantages, while “loneliness (41.4%)” and “costliness (24.8%)” were suggested as disadvantages. In Turkey, the need for a balance between the need for integration and disintegration is emphasized [
According to participants’ views, the top three types of social facilities that are needed/preferred in a settlement are places for shopping (41.3%), parks/green areas (33.4%), and health facilities (33.2%) in order of preference (Figure
Comments on social facilities needed/preferred in a settlement.
According to the preferred housing size and age crosstab (Table
Preferred housing size and age crosstab.
Preferred average | Age | Total | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
housing size | 18–28 | 28–38 | 38–48 | 48–58 | 58 and above | ||
50–90 m2 | Count | 2 | 3 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 20 |
% | 10.0% | 15.0% |
|
20.0% | 15.0% | 100.0% | |
|
|||||||
90–120 m2 | Count | 17 | 33 | 36 | 33 | 14 | 133 |
% | 12.8% | 24.8% |
|
24.8% | 10.5% | 100.0% | |
|
|||||||
120–150 m2 | Count | 50 | 62 | 63 | 45 | 28 | 248 |
% | 20.2% | 25.0% |
|
18.1% | 11.3% | 100.0% | |
|
|||||||
150–180 m2 | Count | 47 | 27 | 28 | 22 | 16 | 140 |
% |
|
19.3% | 20.0% | 15.7% | 11.4% | 100.0% | |
|
|||||||
180 m2 and above | Count | 37 | 27 | 20 | 17 | 6 | 107 |
% |
|
25.2% | 18.7% | 15.9% | 5.6% | 100.0% | |
|
|||||||
Total | Count | 153 | 152 | 155 | 121 | 67 | 648 |
% | 23.6% | 23.5% |
|
18.7% | 10.3% | 100.0% |
Survey participants were also asked for their views on urban transformation practices. Nearly one-third of the respondents are in favor of their housing and its environment to be included in the scope of urban transformation, whereas a significant proportion of them stated they were against it, or they had no idea. Participants made similar comments as to whether they would like to be homeowners/tenants in the urban transformation area (Figure
Comments on urban transformation.
Alacahırka (Bursa Metropolitan Municipality Archives).
Pınarbaşı (Bursa Metropolitan Municipality Archives).
Meydancık-Hocataşkın (Bursa Metropolitan Municipality Archives).
Factors regarding the housing and its immediate environment such as housing type, size, number of rooms, use of interior spaces, comfort features, features of immediate housing environment, adequacy of infrastructure, security, transportation, use of social infrastructure and open areas, social facilities, and neighbor relations are components that provide users with a high quality of life [
This study, which presents the necessary qualities of housing and its environment by considering physical and social needs of users, shows that, on the whole, the survey participants are satisfied with their housing units and housing environment. Most of the participants stated that they want to live together in their current area and within their current social interaction.
Taking measures against disasters and creating safe areas on the scale of housing unit and settlement gain importance in the quality of life in the housing and housing environment. Providing transportation facilities for access to the city center and important facilities must be provided. Convenience in transportation positively affects the quality of the housing and housing environment.
To ensure life quality in the housing and housing environment, urban and environmental qualities should be improved; individuals should be safe; open spaces and sociocultural facilities should be provided; there should be a balance between housing density and population density in the settlement; there should not be any transportation problems in access from the housing to important facilities (school, workplace, etc.) and vice versa; transportation should be supported by public transport; social integration should be ensured; neighbor relations should be supported; and physical, social, and cultural sustainability of the settlement should be enabled.
Determining user needs and preferences that are suitable for local conditions and life styles primarily in housing production in urban transformation practices for renewal in disaster risk areas and in other urban transformation areas will improve housing quality and thus user satisfaction. As a result, users’ adaptation to the new housing and housing environment after the urban transformation will be quicker.
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.