Kent Parklarında Görsel Kalite ve Doğallık Derecesi Arasındaki İlişkilerin Belirlenmesi

Abstract

Kent parkı kullanıcılarının memnuniyeti ancak beklentilerinin karşılanması ile mümkün olabilmektedir. Bu anlamda, ziyaretçilerin parklara yönelik algı ve tercihleri kent parklarının planlama ve tasarım süreçlerinde mutlaka göz önünde bulundurulması gerekmektedir. Bu araştırmada, kent parklarının bitkisel ve yapısal bazı unsurlarının park kullanıcılarının algıları yardımı ile değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Böylece, kent parkları içerisinde bulunan birimlerin kullanıcılar tarafından beğenisi ile doğallık derecesi arasındaki ilişkiler saptanmaya çalışılmıştır. Konya İl merkezinden seçilen dört kent parkı görsel kalite değerlendirmesi yöntemi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Foto-anket 276 gönüllü öğrenci üzerinde uygulanmıştır. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre; parkların tamamında ele alınan unsurlar görsel açıdan beğenilmiştir. Ancak, bu unsurların doğallık derecesi ile ilgili değerler düşük olarak saptanmıştır. 17 adet unsurun her biri için görsel kalite ile doğallık derecesi arasında çok güçlü pozitif ilişkiler belirlenmiştir

Keywords

• Doğallık, Foto-anket, Görsel kalite, Kent parkı, Konya

The Determination of Relationships between Visual Quality and The Degree of Naturalness in Urban Parks

Abstract

Urban park users’ pleasure but it is possible to meet expectations. In this sense, the perception and

preferences of visitors to parks which during the planning and design processes for urban parks should be taken into

consideration. In this study, some elements of the urban parks that vegetative and structural aimed to assessment

via the perceptions of park users. So, it was attempting to determinate the relationships between the elements in

urban parks with preference by the users and the degree of naturalness. Four urban parks were analyzed by using

the visual quality assessment method the center of Konya. Photo-survey conducted on 276 student volunteers. According

to the results, all the elements of park liked the visual aspect. However, the values of these elements were

low on the degree of naturalness. For each of 17 different elements, it was determined strong positive relationships

between the degree of naturalness and visual quality.

Keywords

• Konya,Naturalness,Photo-Survey,Urban Park,Visual quality

References

1. Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega, J.F., Cañas-Madueño, J.A., Ruiz-Aviles, P., 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69: 115-125.
2. Bernasconi, C., Strager, M.P., Maskey, V., Hasanmyer, M., 2009. Assessing public preferences for design and environmental attributes of an urban automated transportation system. Land- scape and Urban Planning, 90: 155–167.
3. Bitar, H., 2004. Public aesthetic preferences and efficient water use in urban parks. Ph.D Thesis, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning The University of Melbourne.
4. Bulut, Z., Karahan, F., Sezen, I., 2010. Determining visual beauti- es of natural waterscapes: A case study for Tortum Valley (Er- zurum/Turkey). Scientific Research and Essay, 5(2): 170-182.
5. Clay, G.R., Smidt, R.K., 2004. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Land- scape and Urban Planning, 66: 239-255.
6. Chambers, I., Calabritto, C., Carmen, M., Esposito, R., Festa, M., Izzo, R., Lanza, O., 2009. Landscapes, art, parks and cultural change. Third Text, 21(3): 315-326.
7. Daniel, T.C., Boster, R.S., 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service Rese- arch Paper, RM-167, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Ex- periment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
8. Dramstad, W.E., Tveit, M.S., Fjellstad, W.J., Fry, G.L.A., 2006. Re- lationships between visual landscape preferences and map- based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78: 465-474.

9. Elinç H, Polat A.T., 2011. Alanya Abdurrahman Alaettinoğlu par- kı kullanıcılarının demografik özellikleri ile parkın görsel ka- litesi arasındaki ilişkiler. İnönü Üniversitesi Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, 1(3): 287-296.
10. Kaplan, A., Taşkın, T., Önenç, A., 2006. Assessing the visual quality of rural and urban-fringed landscapes surrounding livestock farms. Biosystems Engineering, 95(3): 437–448.
11. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., Wendt, J.S., 1972. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception Psychophysics, 12(4): 354–356.
12. Loures, L., Santos, R., Panagopoulos, T., 2007. Urban parks and sustainable city planning - The case of Portimão. Portugal, Wseas Transactions on Environment and Development, 10(3): 171-18.
13. Low, S., Taplin, D., Scheld, S., 2005. Rethinking urban parks: pub- lic space and cultural diversity. First edition, University of Te- xas Press. Austin.
14. Mambretti, I., Lange, E., Schmid, W.A., 2005. Using visualization for the evaluation of safety and aesthetics conflicts in urban parks. Trends in real-time landscape visualization and partici- pation (Editors: E. Buhmann, P. Paar, I. Bishop and E. Lange), pp. 282-290, Wichmann, Heidelberg,.
15. Meitner, J.M., 2004. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Can- yon: relating perceptual judgments to locations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68: 3-13.
16. Müderrisoğlu, H., Demir, Z., 2004. The relationship between per- ceived beauty and safety in urban recreation parks. Journal of Applied Sciences, 4(1): 72-77.
17. Oh, K., Jeong, S., 2007. Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82: 25–32.
18. Polat, A.,T., Önder, S., 2011. Konya İli kent parklarının görsel ka- litesinin belirlenmesi. I. Konya Kent Sempozyumu, 347-357, Konya.
19. Polat, A.T., Güngör, S., Adıyaman, S., 2011. Konya Kenti yakın çevresindeki kentsel rekreasyon alanlarının görsel kalitesi ile kullanıcıların demografik özellikleri arasındaki ilişkiler. I. Ulusal Akdeniz Orman ve Çevre Sempozyumu, Kahraman- maraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi, Kahramanmaraş, 607-617.
20. Purcell, A.T., Lamb, R.J., 1998. Preference and naturalness: An eco- logical approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42: 57-66.
21. Rabare, R.S., Okech, R., Onyango, G.M., 2009. The role of urban parks and socio-economic development: case study of Kisumu Kenya. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Mana- gement, 31(12).
22. Rogge, E., Nevens, F., Gulinck, H., 2007. Perception of rural land- scapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82: 159–174.
23. Sevenant, M., Antrop, M., 2010. The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimen- sions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy, 27: 827-842.
24. Sezen, I., Yılmaz, S., 2010. Visual assessment for the evaluation of Erzurum-Bayburt-of highway as scenic road. Scientific Rese- arch and Essay, 5(4): 366-377.
25. Simonic, T., 2003. Preference and perceived naturalness in visual perception of naturalistic landscapes. Zb. Biotechnical Faculty University of Ljubljana Kmet, 81(2): 369-387.
26. Sullivan W.C., Anderson O.M. Lovell S.T., 2004. Agricultural buf- fers at the rural–urban fringe: an examination of approval by farmers, residents, and academics in the Midwestern United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69: 299-313.
27. Van den Berg, A.E., Vlek, C.A.J., Coeterier, J.F., 1998. Group diffe- rences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach. Journal Environmental Psychology, 18: 141-157.
28. Weifeng, L., Zhiyun, O., Xuesong, M., Xiaoke, W., 2006. Plant spe- cies composition in relation to green cover configuration and function of urban parks in Beijing, China. Ecological Rese- arch, 21: 221-237.
29. Wong, K.K., Domroes, M., 2005. The visual quality of urban park scenes of Kowloon Park, Hong Kong: likeability, affective appraisal, and cross-cultural perspectives. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32: 617-632.
30. Young, G., 1993. Towards a model for an urban park in South Afri- ca. The World Society for Ekistics, 60: 360-361.
31. Zannin, P.H.T., Ferreira, A.M.C., Szeremetta, B., 2006. Evaluation of noise pollution in urban parks. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 118: 423-433.