Visual Preferences of College Students for an Ecological Design Project in a Campus Environment

Abstract

In the last few decades, the integration of ecological design in urban landscapes has gained significant attention from researchers, practitioners, and administrators because of its potential to address environmental challenges and enhance the quality of life. While there are many benefits of integrating ecological design in urban landscapes such as environmental conservation and awareness, its aesthetics have remained a critical, yet often overlooked, aspect. This paper examines the visual preferences of college students for ecological design through a rain garden project at Izmir Katip Celebi University. Ecological design includes green infrastructure strategies like rain gardens that play a major role in creating sustainable urban areas. In this study, we conducted surveys among students at Izmir Katip Celebi University regarding a rain garden project that would be implemented on campus. We provided six rain garden design images, each representing various visual attributes in the survey. The survey also included questions about aesthetic appeal, ecological significance, preferred design choice, and demographic information. We collected the data from 120 respondents and analyzed responses using descriptive statistics. The study findings presented that Image 6, featuring colorful plant selections, received the highest aesthetic rating, while Image 4, with canopy trees, stood out as the most ecologically significant design.

Keywords

• ecological design
• aesthetics
• sustainable design
• green infrastructure
• rain garden

Supporting Institution

This research was supported by the Scientific Research Projects Coordinatorship of Izmir Katip Celebi University for funding this research (Project no.: 2022-GAP-MÜMF-0025)

Project Number

2022-GAP-MÜMF-0025

Ethical Statement

Ethics committee permission is required for this study.

Thanks

We would like to thank Izmir Katip Çelebi University Scientific Research Projects Coordinatorship for their support to our project (Project no: 2022-GAP-MÜMF-0025).

Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Kampüs Ortamındaki Ekolojik Tasarım Projesine Yönelik Görsel Tercihleri

Abstract

Son yıllarda, ekolojik tasarımın kentsel peyzajlara entegrasyonu, çevresel zorlukları ele alma ve yaşam kalitesini artırma potansiyeli nedeniyle araştırmacıların, uygulayıcıların ve yöneticilerin büyük ilgisini çekmiştir. Ekolojik tasarımı kentsel peyzajlara entegre etmenin çevre koruma ve farkındalık gibi pek çok faydası olsa da, estetik kritik ancak çoğu zaman gözden kaçırılan bir unsur olmaya devam ediyor. Bu makale, İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi'ndeki bir yağmur bahçesi projesi üzerinden üniversite öğrencilerinin ekolojik tasarıma yönelik görsel tercihlerini incelemektedir. Ekolojik tasarım, sürdürülebilir kentsel alanların yaratılmasında önemli rol oynayan yağmur bahçeleri gibi yeşil altyapı stratejilerini içerir. Bu çalışmada İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi öğrencileri arasında kampüste hayata geçirilecek yağmur bahçesi projesine yönelik anketler yaptık. Ankette her biri çeşitli görsel nitelikleri temsil eden altı adet yağmur bahçesi tasarım görseli sunduk. Ankette ayrıca estetik çekicilik, ekolojik önem, tercih edilen tasarım seçimi ve demografik bilgilerle ilgili sorular da yer almaktadır. Çalışma içerisinde 120 katılımcıdan veri topladık ve yanıtları betımleyici istatistik kullanarak analiz ettik. Sonuç olarak çalışma bulguları renkli bitki seçimlerinin yer aldığı Resim 6'nın en yüksek estetik puanı aldığını, gölgelik ağaçların yer aldığı Resim 4'ün ise ekolojik açıdan en önemli tasarım olarak öne çıktığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• ekoolojjik tasarım
• estetik
• sürdürülebilir tasarım
• yeşil altyapı
• yağmur bahçesi

Supporting Institution

Bu proje İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinatörlüğü tarafından desteklenmiştir (Proje no: 2022-GAP-MÜMF-0025).

Project Number

2022-GAP-MÜMF-0025

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma için etik kurul iznine gerek vardır.

Thanks

İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinatorlüğü’ne projemize olan desteklerinden ötürü teşekkür ederiz (Proje no: 2022-GAP-MÜMF-0025).

References

1. Ahas, R., Aasa, A., Silm, S.& Roosaare, J. (2005). Seasonal indicators and seasons of Estonian landscapes. Landscape Research, 30, 173–191.
2. Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega, J.F., Cañas-Madueño, J.A., & P. Ruiz-Aviles. 2004. “Assessing the Visual Quality of Rural Landscapes.” Landscape and Urban Planning 69(1): 115-125.
3. Austin, R. (2002). Elements of planting design. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
4. Bandauko, E., Arku, G., & Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H. (2021). A systematic review of gated communities and the challenges of urban transformation in African cities. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 37(1), 339–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-021-09840-1
5. Baptiste, A.K., Foley, C. & Smardon, R. (2015). Understanding urban neighborhood differences in willingness to implement green infrastructure measures: a case study of Syracuse, NY. Landscape and Urban Planning, 136, 1–12.
6. Bell, S. (2004). Elements of Visual Design in the Landscape, E&FN Spon Press: London, UK.
7. Bliven, S. & Kelty, R. (2005). Visual impact assessment of small dock & piers: Theory and practice. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program, Decision Analysis Series No. 25.
8. Buchecker, M., Hunziker, M., & Kienast, F. (2003). Participatory Landscape Development: Overcoming Social Barriers to Public Involvement. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(1-2), 29-46.

9. Burgess, R.L., Kurland, J. A., & Pensky, E. E. (1988). Ultimate and Proximate Determinants of Child Maltreatment: Natural Selection, Ecological Instability And Coercive Interpersonal Contingencies. In Sociobiological Perspectives on Human Development. Edited by K. MacDonald, 293-319. New York: Springer-Verlag.
10. Chen, Z. (2016). Assessing public aesthetic preferences towards some urban landscape patterns: the case study of two different geographic groups. Springer International Publishing, 188 (4), 2-17.
11. Cheng, C.K. (2017). Understanding Visual Preferences for Landscapes: An Examination of the Relationship between Aesthetics and Emotional Bonding. [Doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan University].
12. Corner, J. (1997). Ecology and Landscape as Agents of Creativity. In Ecological Design and Planning. Edited by Thompson George, Steiner Frederick, 80–108. New York: Wiley
13. Daniel, T.C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape Urban Planning, 54, 267–281.
14. Dogmusoz, B.B. (2023). Benefit-Cost Analysis of an Extensive Green Roof Project in Izmir Kâtip Celebi University Cigli Campus. Online Journal of Art and Design, 11(3), 219-232.
15. Dogmusoz,B.B., Tekbudak,M.Y.& Rice,A.(2023). The factors affecting residents’ willingness to implement green infrastructure strategies on their property. Journal of Green Building, 18(1),17-35.
16. GCAP.(2020).IzmirGreenCityActionPlan.Retrievedfromhttps://ebrdgreencities.com/assets/Uploads/PDF/b5cbbe2fd1/Izmir-GCAP-report_FINAL-ISSUED-ENG-002.pdf.
17. Gobster, P. H. (1999). An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal, 18(1), 54-64.
18. Gobster, P.H., & Westpahl, L.M. (2004). The Human Dimensions of Urban Greenways: Planning for Recreation and Related Experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning,68, 147-165
19. Grose, M.J. (2012). Plant colour as a visual aspect of biological conservation. Biological Conservation, 153, 159–163.
20. Haruna, A., Oppong, R. & Marful, A. (2018). Exploring eco-aesthetics for urban green infrastructure development and building resilient cities: A theoretical overview. Cogent Social Sciences.4.doi: 10.1080/23311886.2018.1478492.
21. Harris, V.,Kendal, D.,Hahs, A.K. & Threlfall, C.G . (2018). Green space context and vegetation complexity shape people’s preferences for urban public parks and residential gardens. Landscape Research, 43, 150–162.
22. Hoole, A. & Berkes, F. (2010). Breaking down fences: Recoupling social–ecological systems for biodiversity conservation in Namibia. Geoforum, 41, 304–317.
23. Hodgson, R.W., & Thayer,R. (1980). Implied human influences reduces landscape beauty. Landscape Planning, 7,171-179.
24. Hoyle, B., Dunnett, N.N., Richards, J.P., Russell, J.M. & Warren, P. (2018). Plant species or flower colour diversity? Identifying the drivers of public and invertebrate response to designed annual meadows. Landscape and Urban Planning, 180, 103-113.
25. Howett, C.M. (1987). Systems, Signs, Sensibilities: Sources for a New Landscape Aesthetic. Landscape Journal, 6 (1), 1-12.
26. Hull, R. B., Robertson, D. P., & Kendra, A. (2001). Public Understandings of Nature: A Case Study of Local Knowledge About Natural Forest Conditions. Society and Natural Resources,14,325–340.
27. Junker, B. & Buchecker, M. (2008). Aesthetic Preferences versus Ecological Objectives in River Restorations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85 (3-4), 141-154.
28. Junker, B. & Buchecker, M. (2006). Social Science Contributions to Participatory Planning of Water Systems-Results from Swiss Case Studies. Topics on System Analysis and Integrated Water Resources Management, 243-255.
29. Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1982). Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World. New York: Praeger.
30. Kimberly, H.S. (2007). Visual Preference for Stormwater Pond Edge Treatments: Design Guidelines for Enhanced Stormwater Ponds in Open Space Subdivisions. MLA Thesis, University of Florida
31. 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, 177-198.
32. Lyle, J.T. (1991). Can Floating Seeds Make Deep Forms?. Landscape Journal,10(1),37-47.
33. McHarg, I. L. (1969). Design with Nature. Garden City, NY: The American Museum of Natural History [by] the Natural History Press.
34. McInturff, A., Xu, W., Wilkinson, C.E., Dejid, N. & Brashares, J.S. (2020). Fence Ecology: Frameworks for Undertanding the Ecological Effects of Fences. Bioscience, 70, 971-985.
35. McMorran, R., Price, M.F., & Warren, C.R. (2008). The call of different wilds: the importance of definitione and perception in protecting and managing Scottish wild landscapes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,51 (2), 177–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09640560701862955.
36. Meyer, E.K. (2008). Sustaining beauty: The performance of appearance: can landscape architects insert aesthetics into our discussions of sustainability?. Landscape Architecture 98(10),92-131.
37. Monzingo, L.A.(1997). The Aesthetics of Ecological Design: Seeing Science as Culture. Landscape Journal, 16(1), 46-59.
38. Nasar, J. L. (1998). Visual preferences in urban street scenes: A cross-cultural comparison between Japan and the United States. Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications, 260-274.
39. Palmer, J. F.(1978). An investigation of the conceptual classification of landscapes and its application to landscape planning issues. In Priorities for Environmental Design Research, 92-103.
40. Palmer, J. F. (2004). Using Spatial Metrics to Predict Scenic Perception in a Changing Landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2-3), 201-218.
41. Ryan, J.C. (2011). Plants as Objects for Aesthetics of Flora. Philosophy Study, 1(3), 222-236.
42. Schroeder, H.W.(1991). The Spiritual Aspect of Nature: A Perspective from Depth Psychology. In Proceedings of Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, 25-30. Saratoga Springs, NY.
43. Sheppard, S.R.J., C. Achiam, & R.G. Deon. (2004). Aesthetics: Are we neglecting a critical issue in certification for sustainable forest management?. Journal of Forestry, 102(5), 6-11.
44. Sheppard, S., & Picard, P. (2006). Visual-quality impacts of forest pest activity at the landscape level: A synthesis of published knowledge and research needs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(4), 321-342.
45. Thayer, R. (1976). Visual Ecology: Revitalizing the Aesthetic of Landscape Architecture. Landscape, 20(2),37-43.
46. Tomitaka, M., Uchihara, S., Goto, A. & Sasaki, T. (2021). Species richness and flower color diversity determine aesthetic preferences of natural-park and urban-park visitors for plant communities. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 11.
47. Turner, V.K., Jarden, K. & Jefferson, A. (2015). Residents’ perspectives on green infrastructure in an experimental suburban stormwater management program. Cities and Environment, 9(1), 1-32. Available at: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol9/iss1/4
48. Veinberga, M & Zigmunde, D. (2019). Evaluating the Aesthetics and Ecology of Urban Green Spaces: A Case Study of Latvia. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 603.
49. Williams, K.J. H., & Cary,J.(2002). Landscape Preference, Ecological Quality and Biodiversity Protection. Environment and Behavior, 34(2), 258–275.
50. Yang, B.E & Brown, T.J. (1992). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Preferences for Landscape Styles and Landscape Elements. Environment and Behavior, 24, 471-507
51. Yang, B., Li, S., Elder, B., & Wang, Z. (2013). Community-planning approaches and residents’ perceived safety: a landscape analysis of park design in the woodlands, Texas. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research,30 (4), 311–327. Retrieved from. www.jstor.org/stable/ 43031016.
52. Zurainah, T., Jalaluddin, A., Nur, H., & Shahidah, H. (2020). Review of physical planning aspect of gated community developments. Journal of Physics:Conference Series, 1529. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1529/2/022014
53. Zhang, B. (2013). The Aesthetics Attributes of Green Infrastructure- A Study of The Perceptions of Beauty, Ecological Significance, and Naturalness for a Stormwater Treatment Area by Three College Populations with Different Educational Backgrounds. [Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University].