Gender-Related Expert Evaluation of Visual Landscape Preferences: The Case of Buyuk Sat Glacier Lake and Por Caldera

Year 2024, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 284 - 293, 28.01.2024

Emel Aydın Feran Aşur

https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.1321557

Abstract

Social preferences regarding visual landscape quality are often analyzed based on various techniques, such as the evaluation of admired landscape photographs. These evaluations are influenced by participant characteristics, such as education level, gender, age, and environmental attitudes, as well as the presence, configuration, and texture of different landscape features. The complexity of factors influencing visual quality preferences raises the question of whether it is possible to objectify such research. Studies examining gender and landscape preferences have predominantly focused on the landscapes of public open spaces and green areas in urban settings. This study aims to reveal the visual landscape preferences and tendencies of male and female experts in rural areas with natural landscapes. In this respect, to determine the visual preferences in two different areas that have important visual richness and common characteristics, cross comparison was made using SPSS and Excel programs. The landscape of the Büyük Sat Glacier Lake and its mountains within the borders of Hakkari's Yüksekova district and the Por Village of Bitlis' Tatvan district were compared. and the landscape of its caldera were discussed. Comparing the two areas with the role of natural features in the visual aesthetic appreciation of the landscape and the gender factor, examining their effects on taste and their relationships gives the research a unique quality. The results revealed that expert female users showed higher interest in natural landscapes, but their confidence in the area was lower. Accordingly, it turns out that gender is important in visual landscape preferences. As a result of the study, the importance of gender equality and the need for landscapes to be used with the same confidence by everyone were again encountered.

Keywords

Natural landscape, Sat Glacier Lakes, Por Caldera, Expert Evaluation Based on Gender

Project Number

-

Görsel Peyzaj Tercihlerinde Cinsiyete Bağlı Uzman Değerlendirmesi: Büyük Sat Buzul Gölü ve Por Kalderası Örneği

Abstract

Görsel peyzaj kalitesine ilişkin sosyal tercihler, genellikle, beğenilen manzara fotoğraflarının değerlendirilmesi gibi çeşitli tekniklere dayalı olarak analiz edilmektedir. Bu değerlendirmeler eğitim düzeyi, cinsiyet, yaş ve çevresel tutumlar gibi katılımcı özellikleriyle birlikte farklı peyzaj özelliklerinin varlığı, konfigürasyonu ve dokusundan etkilenmektedir. Görsel kalite tercihlerini etkileyen faktörlerin karmaşıklığı, bu tür araştırmaların nesnelleştirilmesinin mümkün olup olmadığı sorusunu gündeme getirmektedir. İncelemeler demografik faktör olan cinsiyet ve peyzaj tercihleri ile ilgili çalışmaların daha çok kentlerdeki kamusal açık ve yeşil alanların peyzajları ile ilgili olduğunu ortaya çıkarmıştır. Çalışmada doğal peyzaja sahip kırsal alanlarda erkek ve kadın uzmanların görsel peyzaj tercihleri ve eğilimlerini ortaya çıkarmak amaçlanmıştır. Bu doğrultuda önemli görsel zenginliklere sahip olan, ortak özellikler taşıyan iki farklı alanda görsel tercihleri saptamak amacıyla Hakkâri'nin Yüksekova ilçesi sınırları içerisinde bulunan Büyük Sat Buzul Gölü ve dağlarına ait peyzaj ile Bitlis'in Tatvan ilçesine bağlı Por Köyü ve kalderasına ait peyzaj ele alınmıştır. Peyzajın görsel estetik beğenisinde doğal özelliklerin rolü ve cinsiyet faktörüyle iki alanın kıyaslanması, beğeni üzerindeki etkisi ve ilişkilerinin irdelenmesi araştırmaya özgün bir nitelik kazandırmaktadır. Çıkan sonuçlar, kadın kullanıcıların doğal peyzajlara daha yüksek ilgi gösterdiğini ancak alana duydukları güvenin daha düşük olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bu iki durum sonucunda toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği konusunun önemi ve peyzajların herkes tarafından aynı güvenle kullanılması gerekliliğiyle yeniden karşılaşılmıştır.

Keywords

Doğal peyzaj, Sat Buzul Gölleri, Por Kalderası, peyzaj tercihi

Supporting Institution

-

Project Number

-

Thanks

-

References

• Acarlı, B., Kiper, T. 2018. Kent meydanlarının geçmiş ve günümüz görüntülerinin görsel peyzaj kalitesinin saptanması: İstanbul ili Taksim meydanı örneği. İnönü Üniversitesi Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, 8(17), 15-31.
• Aklıbaşında, M., Atabeyoğlu, Ö. ve Bulut, Y. 2011. Peyzaj mimarlığında cinsiyete bağlı tasarım tercihleri. Appleton, J. 1975. The Experience of Landscape (London: Wiley).
• Aşur, F., Akpınar Külekçi, E. 2020. The Relationship Between the Adorability of Urban Landscapes and Their Users Demographic Variables: The Case of Edremit, Van/Turkey. Journal of International Environmental Application and Science, 15(1).
• Brown, G. and Harris, C. 1992. The US forest service: toward the new resource management paradigm. Soc. Nat. Resour. 5, 231–245.
• Clay, G.R. and Smidt. R.K. 2004. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis Landsc. Urban Plan., 66 (2004), pp.239-255.
• Daniel, T. C., A. Muhar, A. Arnberger, O. Aznar, J. W. Boyd, K. M. Chan, A. and Von Der Dunk. A. 2012. “Contributions of Cultural Services to the Ecosystem Services Agenda.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (23): 8812–8819.
• Dramstad, W.E., Sundli Tveit, M., Fjellstad, W.J., Fry, G.L.A., 2006. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Land Urban Plan 78, 465–474.
• De La Fuente de Val, G. and Mühlhauser, H. 2014. Visual quality: An examination of a South American Mediterranean landscape, Andean foothills east of Santiago (Chile). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(2), 261-271.
• Domon, G. 2011. Landscape as resource: Consequences, challenges and opportunities for rural development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 338-340.
• Dupont, L., Ooms, K., Antrop, M., and Van Eetvelde, V. 2016. Comparing saliency maps and eye-tracking focus maps: The potential use in visual impact assessment based on landscape photographs. Landscape and urban planning, 148, 17-26.
• Ergas, C. and York, R. 2012. Women’s status and carbon dioxide emissions: a quantitative crossnational analysis. Sci. Res. 41 (4), 965–976.
• Evensen, K. H., Hemsett, G. and Nordh, H. 2021. Developing a place-sensitive tool for park-safety management experiences from green-space managers and female park users in Oslo. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 60, 127057.
• Filova, L., Vojar, J., Svobodova, K. and Sklenicka, P. 2015. The effect of landscape type and landscape elements on public visual preferences: ways to use knowledge in the context of landscape planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(11), 2037-2055.
• Fry, G., M. S. Tveit, Å. Ode, and M. D. Velarde. 2009. “The Ecology of Visual Landscapes: Exploring the Conceptual Common Ground of Visual and Ecological Landscape Indicators.” Ecological Indicators 9 (5): 933–947.
• Garcia, X., Benages-Albert, M., Buchecker, M. and Vall-Casas, P. 2020. River rehabilitation: Preference factors and public participation implications. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(9), 1528-1549.
• Gifford, R. and Nilsson, A. 2014. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. Int J Psychol, 49(3), 141–157.
• Gobster, P.H. 2002. Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse clientele. Leisure Sciences: 24, 143-159.
• Hami, A. and Tarashkar, M. 2018. “Assessment of Women’s Familiarity Perceptions and Preferences in Terms of Plants Origins in the Urban Parks of Tabriz, Iran.” Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 32 (December 2017): 168–176.
• Jahani, A., Makhdoom, M., Feghhi, J., Etemat, V. 2010. Determine the quality of the landscape and the outlook in order to Ecotourism (Case study: Patom forest Kheiroud). Environmental Studies, V. 2., N. 3., p. 13.
• Kaltenborn, B. P., Bjerke, T. 2002 Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and urban planning, 59(1), 1-11.
• Kalivoda, O., Vojar, J., Skřivanová, Z. ve Zahradník, D. 2014. Consensus in landscape preference judgments: The effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents' characteristics. Journal of environmental management, 137, 36-44.
• Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. ve Ryan, R. 1998. With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Island press.
• Kerebel, A., Gélinas, N., Déry, S., Voigt, B., & Munson, A. 2019. Landscape aesthetic modelling using Bayesian networks: Conceptual framework and participatory indicator weighting. Landscape and Urban Planning, 185, 258-271.
• Kong, L. L., Yuen, B., Briffett, C. and Sodhi, N. S. 1997. Nature and nurture, danger and delight: Urban women's experiences of the natural world. Landscape Research, 22(3), 245-266.
• Lee, L. H. 2017. Perspectives on landscape aesthetics for the ecological conservation of wetlands. Wetlands, 37(2), 381-389.
• Lindemann-Matthies, P., Briegel, R., Schüpbach, B., & Junge, X. 2010. Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: The impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 98(2), 99-109.
• Lindhjem, H. and Navrud, S. 2011. Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation? Ecological economics, 70(9), 1628-1637.
• Lothian, A. 1999. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning, 44, pp. 177 – 198.
• Ma, R., Luo, Y. and Furuya, K. 2023. Gender Differences and Optimizing Women’s Experiences: An Exploratory Study of Visual Behavior While Viewing Urban Park Landscapes in Tokyo, Japan. Sustainability, 15(5), 3957.
• Meinig, DW. 1979. The beholding eye: Ten versions of the same scene. The interpretation of ordinary landscapes: Geographical essays, 33-48.
• Milfont, T. L. and Duckitt, J. 2004. The structure of environmental attitudes: A first- and second-order confirmatory factor analysis. J.of Environ. Psychology, 24(3), 289–303.
• Navarrete-Hernandez, P., Vetro, A. and Concha, P. 2021. Building safer public spaces: Exploring gender difference in the perception of safety in public space through urban design interventions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 214, 104180.
• Ode, Å., Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Messager, P., Miller, D. 2009. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of environmental management, 90(1), 375-383.
• Palmer, J.F. and Hoffman, R.E. 2001. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54, 149–161.
• Philipp, S. F. 2000. Race and the pursuit of happiness. J.Leisure Research, 23: 290-304.
• Rahm, J., Sternudd, C. and Johansson, M. 2021. In the evening, I don’t walk in the park: The interplay between street lighting and greenery in perceived safety. Urban design international, 26, 42-52.
• Richard, D. and Peterson, S. 1998. Perception of environmental risk related to gender, communityn socioeconomic setting, age, and locus of control. J. Environ. Educ. 30, 11–19.
• Rosa, C. D., Larson, L. R., Collado, S., Cloutier, S. and Profice, C. C. 2023. Gender differences in connection to nature, outdoor preferences, and nature-based recreation among college students in Brazil and the United States. Leisure Sciences, 45(2), 135-155.
• Roth, M. 2006. Validating the use of Internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment—An empirical study from Germany. Landscape and urban planning, 78(3), 179-192.
• Sarı, D. ve Karaşah, B. 2015. Hatila Vadisi Milli Parkı'nda (Artvin) yer alan farklı vejetasyon tiplerinin görsel değerlendirmesi üzerine bir çalışma. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 16(1), 65-74.
• Sevenant, M. and Antrop, M. 2009. Cognitive Attributes And Aesthetic Preferences In Assessment And Differentiation of Landscapes, Journal of Environmental Management, 90 (9), 2889-2899.
• Solecka, I. 2019. The use of landscape value assessment in spatial planning and sustainable land management—a review. Landscape Research, 44(8), 966-981.
• Steinitz, C. 2001. Visual evaluation models: some complicating questions regarding memorable scenes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1-4), 283-287.
• Svobodova, K., Sklenicka, P., Molnarova, K. and Salek, M. 2012. Visual preferences for physical attributes of mining and post-mining landscapes with respect to the sociodemographic characteristics of respondents. Ecol. Eng. 43, 34–44.
• Tahvanainen, L., Tyrväinen, L., Ihalainen, M., Vuorela, N. and Kolehmainen, O. 2001. Forest management and public perceptions—visual versus verbal information. Landscape and urban planning, 53(1-4), 53-70.
• Tieskens, K.F., Van Zanten, B.T., Schulp, C.J.E. and Verburg, P.H. 2018. Aesthetic appreciation of the cultural landscape through social media: an analysis of revealed preference in the Dutch river landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 177, 128–137.
• Tikka, P., Kuitunen, M. and Tynys, S. 2000. Effects of educational background on students’ attitudes, activity levels, and knowledge concerning the environment. J. Environ. Educ. 31, 12–19.
• Tveit, M., Ode, Å. and Fry, G. 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape research, 31(3), 229-255.
• Uzun, F. Ç. 2018. Kastamonu tabiat parklarının görsel kalite analizi, Doktora Tezi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Kastamonu Üniversitesi.
• Villamor, G. B., van Noordwijk, M., Djanibekov, U., Chiong-Javier, M. E. and Catacutan, D. 2014. Gender differences in land-use decisions: shaping multifunctional landscapes?. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6, 128-133.
• Wang, R., Zhao, J. and Liu, Z. 2016.Consensus in visual preferences: The effect of aesthetic quality and landscape types, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening,20,210-217
• Wherrett, J. R. 1999. Issues in using the Internet as a medium for landscape preference research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 45(4), 209-217.
• Xu, M., Luo, T. and Wang, Z. 2020. Urbanization diverges residents’ landscape preferences but towards a more natural landscape: case to complement landsenses ecology from the lens of landscape perception. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 27(3), 250-260.
• Yang, G., Yu, Z., Zhang, J. and Søderkvist Kristensen, L. 2021. From preference to landscape sustainability: a bibliometric review of landscape preference research from 1968 to 2019. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 7(1), 1948355.
• Yazici, K., Asur, F. 2021. Assessment of landscape types and aesthetic qualities by visual preferences (Tokat, Turkey). J. Environmental Protection and Ecology, 22(1).
• Zhang, H., Lin, S. H. 2011. Affective appraisal of residents and visual elements in the neighborhood: A case study in an established suburban community. Landscape and urban planning, 101(1), 11-21.
• Zelezny, L.C., Poh-Pheng, C. and Christina, A. 2000. New ways of thinking about environmentalism: elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. J. Soc. Issues 56 (3), 443–457.