Residents’ Perceptions of Riverine Landscape Changes; Case Study of Beykoz Stream/ Istanbul

Year 2018, Volume: 19 Issue: 2, 253 - 266, 30.06.2018

Sahar Pouya Fatma Ayçim Türer Başkaya

https://doi.org/10.18038/aubtda.336959

Abstract

Residents are an inevitable part of any urban
plan and knowing about their perceptions is a key factor to change the urban
areas. This issue is of greater importance in urban river enhancement projects,
as the rivers are associated with various economic, cultural, and social issues
of the residents. The main goal of the present research is to assess riverine
landscape of Beykoz in Istanbul after bearing tremendous changes. The riverine
landscape is surveyed considering the natural features, physical elements, and
the people’s perception in particular. The main part is based on interview with
the local residents to achieve their comments about the stream changes and the
ecological and cultural memory related the stream. The results indicated that
there is valuable information in perception of the residents about natural
corridors like the streams that should be evaluated before any restorative operation.
Changing the stream channel and its bank with no care of the residents’
dimension will disturb the place identity, valuable belongingness, and the
unique meanings associated with the rivers. Visual access to the stream, the
stream’s natural landscape with native vegetation, its biodiversity, its sound
and color are the factors that should be maintained during the urban
development projects.

Keywords

Riverine Landscape, Resident’s preference, Perception, Evaluation

References

• [1] Smith, B., Clifford, N.J., & Mant, J., (2014). The changing nature of river restoration. Journal of WIREs Water. 1 , pp. 249–261.
• [2] Tockner, K., Pusch, M., Borchard, D., & Lorang, M.S., Multiple stressors in coupled river floodplain ecosystems. Journal of Freshwater Biol. 55, 2010. pp. 135–151.
• [3] Westling, E. L., Surridge, B. W., Sharp, L., & Lerner, D. N. Making sense of landscape change: Long-term perceptions among local residents following river restoration. Journal of hydrology, 519, 2014. 2613-2623.
• [4] Selman, P., Carter, C., Lawrence, A., & Morgan, C., Re-connecting with a recovering river through imaginative engagement . Ecol Soc. 15 (3), 2010. pp.18
• [5] Ulrich, R. S. “Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment”. In I. Altman, & J. F. Wohl will (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment, New York: Plenum Press, 1983. pp. 85–125.
• [6] Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1989.
• [7] Terry C., D. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and urban planning. 54, 2001. 267-281.
• [8] Wu. Y., Bishop. I, Hossain, H. & Sposito, V., Using GIS in landscape visual quality assessment, Applied GIS, Volume2, Number 3, Monash University Epress. 2006.
• [9] Lothian, A. 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, 1999. 177-198.
• [10] Gobster, PH. An ecological aesthetics for forest landscape management. Landscape, J. 18(1), (1999). 54-6
• [11] Silva, B., J.; Saraiva., G., M., Ramos, L., I., & Bernardo, F., Methodology of aesthetic evaluation of rivers in urban context, Urban River Rehabilitation Conference Dresden, September, 2005. p. 1-9.
• [12] Proshansky., H.M. The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10, 1978. pp. 147-169.
• [13] Eden, S., & Tunstall, S., Ecological versus social restoration? How urban river restoration challenges but also fails to challenge the science – policy nexus in the United Kingdom. Environ. Plann. C 24, 2006. 661–680.
• [14] Nassauer, J.I., Kosek, S.E., & Corry, R.C., Meeting public expectations with ecological innovation in riparian landscapes. Journal. Am. Water Resource. 37, 2001. 1–5.
• [15] Nilsson, C., Jansson, R., Malmqvist, B., Robert, J., & Naiman, R.J., Restoring riverine landscapes: the challenge of identifying priorities, reference states, and techniques. Ecol. Soc. 12, 16. 2007.
• [16] Buijs, A.E., Elands, B.H.M., & Langers, F. No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences, Landscape and Urban Planning, 91, 2009. pp 113‐123.
• [17] Swanwick, C. Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape Land Use, Policy 26S S62-S75. 2009.
• [18] Pirgaip, G., The research of landscape historical development example Beykoz . Master thesis, Urban and Regional Planning. Yıldız Technical University. 2007.
• [19] Yucel, S.D., Ecological transition zones in the relationship between sustainable city and landscape, Doctorate thesis. Urban and Regional Planning. Landscape Architecture. Mimar Sinan Art University. 2012.
• [20] Dinç, H., & Bölen, F., The Physical Structure of Streams in Istanbul. Planlama, 24(2), 2014. pp.107-120.
• [21] Ozus, E., Sence, S., Turk, S., & Dokmeci, V., Urban Restructuring of Istanbul, European Planning Studies, 19, (2). 2011.
• [22] Kivrak E. T., Cultural landscape analysis and assessment of Beykoz, Polonezköy, Master thesis, Landscape architecture, Istanbul University. 2011.
• [23] Tarakçı, S., Altay, V., Keskin M., & Sümer, S., Urban Vascular Flora of Beykoz and Its Surroundings. The Black Sea Journal of Sciences. 2(7), 2012. pp. 46‐67.
• [24] Inan, M., Effect of land use changes on the stream-flow and water quality parameters in Yeniciflik Creek, Master thesis, Forest Engineering Department, Istanbul University. 1998