Plant-Space Relationship: An Example of Mosque Courtyard

Abstract

The most important spatial element which helps understanding and defining a place are the type of plants which give a certain character or symbol. Although it is difficult to reveal the perception of space  and plant interactions by humans, it can be achieved through experimental studies. In this study, visual impressions of the users in evaluating the perception of plants with spaces were determined by experimental study and the survey technique was used. The study was conducted in Istanbul, and over 500 people including 100 primary school students, 100 secondary school students, 100 high school students, 100 university students and 100 university graduates participated in the survey. In this study, 28 plants, which are frequently seen and familiar with outdoor areas, were used. In this study, it was aimed to reveal the opinions about which of these plants were associated with the mosque courtyard and which characteristic of the plants were emphasized. Gender and educational level differences were investigated and results revealed that gender and educational levels effected participants’ preferences. According to the results, flower bushes were preferred primarily for the mosque courtyard, and rose, pine, tulip, violet and buxus plants were preferred as the first choices respectively.

Keywords

• plant-space,mosque courtyard,plant's meaning

References

1. Emin, N., 2012. Marka kent oluşturmada sembol yapıların değerlendirilmesi ve bir uygulama. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
2. Guiraud, P. (1990). Göstergebilim. Çev: Mehmet Yalçın, Sivas, M.Y. Özel yayım.
3. Kalın, A., 1997. Bitkilerin anlamsal boyutu: farklı fonksiyonlardaki bina ve mekanlarla anılabilen bitkiler üzerine bir araştırma. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı, Trabzon.
4. Özbilen, A., and Kalın, A., 2001. The semantic value of plants in the perception of space. Building and Environment, 36(2): 257-279.
5. Sakıcı, Ç., 2014. Bitkilerin psikolojik katkıları. Gıda Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı Dergisi, Türktarım, 216 (Mart-Nisan): 38-43. (ISSN: 1303-2364).
6. Sakıcı, C., 2017. Urban silhouette desing: A case study of Kastamonu. Kastamonu University, Journal of Forestry Faculty, 17(4):652-659.
7. Söderback, I., Söderström, M., and Schalander, E., 2004. Horticultural therapy: the ‘healing garden’ and gardening in rehabilitation measures at Danderyd Hospital Rehabilitation Clinic, Sweden. Pediatric Rehabilitation, 7(4): 245-260.
8. Tanyeli, U., 1988. Tarih. Tasarim ve mimarliktan yararlanma üzerine gözlemler. Mimarlık Dergisi, 228(6): 61-64.

9. Tekeli, İ., 1991. “Bir kentin kimliği üzerine düşünceler”. Kent Planlaması Konuşmaları, Ankara: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Yayını, 79-89.
10. Tyson, M.M., 1998. The healing landscape: therapeutic outdoor environments. McGraw-Hill, New York, 224 p.
11. Williamson, J., 2001. Reklamların dili. Ütopya Yayınevi, Ankara.
12. Yalım, F., 2017. Yavaş şehir (Cıttaslow) hareketi ekseninde kent markalaşması ve kent iletişimi: Kırklareli "Vize" yavaş şehir örneği. Trakya Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2):1-28.