BibTex RIS Cite

The visual quality assessment of urban coastline landscapes: A case study of Akçakoca City Turkey

Year 2016, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 180 - 187, 15.08.2016

Abstract

This research has been conducted along a 14 km part of Akçakoca coastline. Research findings, which depend on visual quality assessment criteria, include analysis of the current situation of the research area, and the comparisons of current visual landscape and proposed improvements, supported with expert and public participation. For visual quality assessment; the factors determined by Lynch 1960 for his study and Nasar 1992 ’s spatial characteristics in his study, also used by Çakcı 2009 , were used to develop a visual criteria modelling process.The main materials of the research are 17 photographs of the coastline which were selected from 42 photographs depending on expert opinions. User group, selected from the public, were asked to assess the spatial characteristics of the research area by comparing the selected photographs and the photographs that represent proposed improvements. Significant data were derived depending on the analysis results of the methodology used in this research. Levels of order, openness, maintenance and presence of natural elements were determined by assessing research findings, and the differences between spatial characteristics were displayed using comparison results of photographs of current landscape and proposed improvements

References

  • Ak, M.K. 2013. Visual quality assessment methods in landscape architecture studies. Advances in Landscape Architecture. ISBN: 978-953-51-1167-2, 2013
  • Çakcı, I., Çelem H. 2009. Kent parklarında görsel peyzaj algısının değerlendirilmesi. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi. 15/1, 85- 95 pp. Ankara (in Turkish).
  • Daniel, T.C., Vinning, J. 1983. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality, in I. Altman abd J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), human behavior and environment. Behavior and the Natural Environment. Volume 6. Plenum Press. New York.
  • Eroğlu E., Demir Z. 2016. Phenological and visual evaluations of some roadside deciduous trees in urban area. Biological Diversity and Conservation, 9/1, 143-153.
  • Jacobs, P. 1975. The landscape image: current approaches to the visual analysis of the landscape. Town Planning Review. Vol.46, No.2.
  • Kalın, A., Eroğlu, E., Acar, C., Çakır, G., Güneroğlu, N., Kahveci, H.,Gel, A. 2014. Visual quality in landscape character: example of mountain-road corridor in Turkey. Journal of Balkan Ecology. Vol:17/2, 161-180.
  • Lothian, A. 1999. Landscape and philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the beholder?. Landscape and Urban Planning. 44, 177-198.
  • Lynch, K. 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge MA, MIT Press, USA.
  • Müderrisoğlu, H., Eroğlu, E., Ak, K., Aydın, Ş.Ö. 2006. Visual perception of tree form. Building and Environment. Vol, 41. Pages. 796-806.
  • Nasar, J.L. 1992. Visual preferences in urban street Scenes: A cross cultural comparison between Japan and United States. Environmental Aesthetics: theory, research and applications. Cambridge University Press. New York.
  • Oğuz, D., 2000. User surveys of Ankara’s urban parks. Landscape and Urban Planning. Volume/Issue: 52/2-3)/, Elsevier. p: 165-171.
  • Pryce, S. 1991. Planning outlook. Community Control of Landscape Management, 34/2 75-82

Kentsel kıyı peyzajlarının görsel kalite değerlendirmesi: Akçakoca örneği

Year 2016, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 180 - 187, 15.08.2016

Abstract

Bu çalışma; Akçakoca kenti kıyı bandının yaklaşık 14 km’lik kısmı ve yakın çevresinde sürdürülmüştür. Görsel kalite değerlendirme ölçütlerine bağlı olarak yapılan çalışmada elde edilen bulgular, kıyı bandının mevcut durum analizi ile iyileştirilmiş hallerinin kıyaslanmasından oluşmakta; uzman grubu ve halkın katılımı ile de desteklenmektedir. Görsel kalite değerlendirmesinde; Lynch 1960 ’in “kent imgeleri” nin oluşturulmasında belirlediği etmenlerden ve Çakcı 2009 ’nın da çalışmasında kullandığı Nasar 1992 ’ın çalışmasındaki mekânsal karakteristiklerden yararlanılarak bir görsel ölçüt modelleme süreci geliştirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Kıyı bandı üzerinde görüntülenen 42 adet fotoğrafın, uzman görüşleri doğrultusunda elenmesi ile belirlenen 17 adet fotoğraf araştırmanın ana materyalini oluşturmaktadır. Halkın içerisinden rastgele seçilen kullanıcı grubundan da bu 17 adet fotoğraf ve iyileştirilmiş halleri olan kurgu tasar görüntülerinin mekânsal karakteristiklere göre değerlendirilmeleri istenmiştir.Araştırmada kullanılan yöntemin analiz sonuçlarına dayanılarak, istatistiksel anlamda anlamlı veriler elde edilmiştir. Araştırma bulgularının değerlendirilmesi sonucu her bir fotoğrafın; düzenlilik, açıklık, bakımlılık ve doğal elemanların varlığının seviyeleri belirlenmiş ve mevcut görüntüler ile kurgu tasar görüntüler arasındaki mekansal karakteristikler açısından farklar ortaya konulmuştur

References

  • Ak, M.K. 2013. Visual quality assessment methods in landscape architecture studies. Advances in Landscape Architecture. ISBN: 978-953-51-1167-2, 2013
  • Çakcı, I., Çelem H. 2009. Kent parklarında görsel peyzaj algısının değerlendirilmesi. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi. 15/1, 85- 95 pp. Ankara (in Turkish).
  • Daniel, T.C., Vinning, J. 1983. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality, in I. Altman abd J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), human behavior and environment. Behavior and the Natural Environment. Volume 6. Plenum Press. New York.
  • Eroğlu E., Demir Z. 2016. Phenological and visual evaluations of some roadside deciduous trees in urban area. Biological Diversity and Conservation, 9/1, 143-153.
  • Jacobs, P. 1975. The landscape image: current approaches to the visual analysis of the landscape. Town Planning Review. Vol.46, No.2.
  • Kalın, A., Eroğlu, E., Acar, C., Çakır, G., Güneroğlu, N., Kahveci, H.,Gel, A. 2014. Visual quality in landscape character: example of mountain-road corridor in Turkey. Journal of Balkan Ecology. Vol:17/2, 161-180.
  • Lothian, A. 1999. Landscape and philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the beholder?. Landscape and Urban Planning. 44, 177-198.
  • Lynch, K. 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge MA, MIT Press, USA.
  • Müderrisoğlu, H., Eroğlu, E., Ak, K., Aydın, Ş.Ö. 2006. Visual perception of tree form. Building and Environment. Vol, 41. Pages. 796-806.
  • Nasar, J.L. 1992. Visual preferences in urban street Scenes: A cross cultural comparison between Japan and United States. Environmental Aesthetics: theory, research and applications. Cambridge University Press. New York.
  • Oğuz, D., 2000. User surveys of Ankara’s urban parks. Landscape and Urban Planning. Volume/Issue: 52/2-3)/, Elsevier. p: 165-171.
  • Pryce, S. 1991. Planning outlook. Community Control of Landscape Management, 34/2 75-82
There are 12 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Mehmet Kivanç Ak This is me

Oğuz Yılmaz This is me

Publication Date August 15, 2016
Published in Issue Year 2016 Volume: 9 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Ak, M. K., & Yılmaz, O. (2016). Kentsel kıyı peyzajlarının görsel kalite değerlendirmesi: Akçakoca örneği. Biological Diversity and Conservation, 9(2), 180-187.

❖  Abstracted-Indexed in
Web of Science {Zoological Records Indexed] Clavariate Analytic, Medical Reads (RRS), CrossRef;10.46309/biodicon.

❖ Libraries
Aberystwyth University; All libraries; Bath University; Birmingham University; Cardiff University; City University London; CONSER (Not UK Holdings); Edinburgh University; Essex University; Exeter University; Eskişehir Technical University Library; EZB Electronic Journals Library; Feng Chia University Library; GAZİ Gazi University Library; Glasgow University; HEC-National Digital Library; Hull University; Imperial College London; Kaohsinug Medical University Library; ANKOS; Anadolu University Library; Lancaster University; Libros PDF; Liverpool University; London Metropolitan University; London School of Economics and Political Science; Manchester University; National Cheng Kung University Library; National ILAN University Library; Nottingham University; Open University; Oxford University; Queen Mary,University of London;Robert Gordon University; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sheffield Hallam University; Sheffield University; Shih Hsin University Library; Smithsonian Institution Libraries; Southampton University; Stirling University; Strathclyde University; Sussex University; The National Agricultural Library (NAL); The Ohio Library and Information NetWork; Trinity College Dublin; University of Washington Libraries; Vaughan Memorial Library; York University..

❖ The article processing is free.

❖ Web of Science-Clarivate Analytics, Zoological Record
❖ This journal is a CrossRef;10.46309/biodicon. member

❖ Please visit ” http:// www.biodicon.com“ ; "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/biodicon"   for instructions about articles and all of the details about journal


❖  Correspondance Adres: Prof. Ersin YÜCEL, Sazova Mahallesi, Ziraat Caddesi, No.277 F Blok, 26005 Tepebaşı-Eskişehir/Türkiye
E-posta / E-mail: biodicon@gmail.com;
Web Address: http://www.biodicon.com;   https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/biodicon
❖ Biological Diversity and Conservation/ Biyolojik Çeşitlilik ve Koruma
❖ ISSN 1308-5301 Print; ISSN 1308-8084 Online
❖ Start Date Published 2008
© Copyright by Biological Diversity and Conservation/Biyolojik Çeşitlilik ve Koruma-Available online at www.biodicon.com/All rights reserved
Publisher : ERSİN YÜCEL (https://www.ersinyucel.com.tr/)
❖ This journal is published three numbers in a year. Printed in Eskişehir/Türkiye.
❖ All sorts of responsibilities of the articles published in this journal are belonging to the authors
Editör / Editor-In-Chief : Prof.Dr. Ersin YÜCEL, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8274-7578