Farklı karakterdeki kırsal peyzajların görsel değerlendirmesi

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 69 Sayı: 1, 44 - 60, 01.01.2019

Esra Özhancı Hasan Yılmaz

Öz

DOI: 10.26650/forestist.2019.040219

Hızlı kentleşme ve kentsel yapının ortaya
çıkardığı yoğun ve stresli yaşam koşulları, kent halkı üzerinde baskı
oluşturmaktadır. Ayrıca kentsel ve endüstriyel kirleticilerin yarattığı zararlı
etkiler her geçen gün artmaktadır. Bu noktada kırsal alanların varlığı ve
niteliği daha da önem kazanmakta, estetik ve fonksiyonel rolü büyümektedir. Bir
peyzajın görsel değeri, alanın kimliğini yansıtan ilk veri ve planlamanın
başlangıcıdır. Görsel kalite, özellikle kırsal alanlarda müdahalenin minimuma
indirilmesi, doğru plan kararları alınması açısından belirleyici bir değer olmaktadır.
Bu çalışmada, çalışma alanında yer alan farklı karakterdeki kırsal alanlar için
görsel değerlendirme elde edilmek istenmiş, belirlenen örnek kırsal yerleşimler
(Bayburt ilinde yer alan 10 köy) üzerinde Görsel Peyzaj Kalite Analizi
uygulanmıştır. Peyzaj üniteleri bütününde; en yüksek puan alan peyzaj ünitesi
Bitki Örtüsü (M=0,78 ), ikincisi ise Yol Peyzajı (M=0,71), üçüncüsü ise
Tarımsal Peyzaj (M=0,70)  olmuştur.
Kültürel peyzaj ise son sırada yer almıştır(M=-0,43).

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bayburt, Görsel kalite, görsel peyzaj

Visual assessment of rural landscape with different characters

Öz

DOI: 10.26650/forestist.2019.040219

Rapid urbanization and urban structuring
made in resonse to intense and stressful living conditions has been putting
undue pressure on city residents. In addition, the harmful effects of urban and
industrial pollutants increases with every passing day. For these reasons, the
existence and nature of rural areas become even more important as the aesthetic
and functional roles of rural sites grow. The visual value of the landscape is
the initial data that reflects the identity of the area and the beginning of
landscape planning. Visual quality has a particularly decisive value for the
goals of minimizing intervention and making the right planning decisions for
rural areas. This study aimed to conduct visual evaluation on rural areas that
feature different characters. Visual Landscape Quality Analysis was performed
on designated rural settlements (10 villages situated in Bayburt). Results
showed that the highest rated landscape unit was Vegetation Landscape (M =
0.78), with Path Landscape ranking second (M = 0.71), and followed by
Agricultural Landscape in third rank (M = 0.70). The Cultural Landscape ranked
the least (M = −0.43).

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bayburt, visual landscape, visual quality

Kaynakça

• • Angileri. V., Toccolini. A., 1993. The assesment of visual quality as atol for the conservation of rural landscape diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 24(1-4): 105-112. [CrossRef] • Arriaza. M., Canas-Ortega. J.F., Canas-Madueno. J.A., Ruiz-Aviles. P., 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Lanscape and Urban Planning 69: 115-125. [CrossRef] • Bergen. S. D. Ulbricht C. A. Fridley J. L., Ganter M. A., 1995. The validity of computer-generated graphic images of forest landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15(2):135-146. [CrossRef] • Cloquell-Ballester. V.A., Torres-Sibille. A.C., Cloquell-Ballester., V.A. Santamarina-Siurana. M.C. 2012. Human alteration of the rural landscape: Variations in visual perception. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32: 50–60. [CrossRef] • Erdem. N., Coskun. A.A., 2009. Concurrency Analysis of European Lanscape Convention Articles with Turkish Planning Legislation. Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University. Series B. Vol 59. No 2. • Franco. D. Franco. D. Mannino. I. Zanetto. G. 2003. The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation. The role of a landscape ecological network on socio-cultural process. Landscape Urban Plan 62: 119-138. [CrossRef] • Fry. G., Tveit. M.S., Ode. A., Velarde., M.D., 2009. The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators 9: 933-947. [CrossRef] • Fuante de Val. G. Atauri A.J. Lucio J.V. 2006. Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial patte§rn indices: A test study in Mediterranean- climate landscapes. Landscape and Planning 77(4): 393-407. [CrossRef] • Gruehn. D. Roth. M. 2008. New Approaches in Visual Landscape Assessment and Modelling. International Landscape Architecture Conference Proceedings. Jelgava. Latvia. • Hagerhall. C.M. 2000. Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional Swedish cultural landscape: prospect-refuge. mystery. age and management. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20: 83–90. [CrossRef] • Hagerhall. C. M.2001. Consensus In Landscape Preference Judgements. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21: 83-92. [CrossRef] • Hagerhall. C.M. Purcell. T. Taylor. R. 2004. Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24: 247-255. [CrossRef] • Hartig. T. 1993. Nature experience in transactional perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning 25. 17–36. Journal of Environmental Psychology 17: 11-32. • Krause. C.L. 2001. Our visual landscape managing the landscape under special consideration of visual aspects. Landscape and Urban Planning 54: 239-254. [CrossRef] • Lokocz. E. Ryan. R.L. Sadler. A.J. 2011. Motivations for land protection and stewardship: Exploring place attachment and rural landscape character in Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning 99: 65–76. [CrossRef] • Meitner, M.J., 2004. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon: relating perceptual judgments to locations. Landscape and Urban Planning 68: 3-13. [CrossRef] • Özhancı, E., Yılmaz. H., Yılmaz. S., 2013. Safety perception of different plant designs in pedestrian and car streets. Urban Design International 19: 303–310. [CrossRef] • Özgüç, İ.M., 1999. Visual researchs on landscape planning of TEM Hadımköy-Kınalı. Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University. Seri A 49(2): 115-132. • Özgüç, İ.M., 2008. Landscape Aesthetic and Visual Quality Assessment. Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University. Series B. Vol 58. No 1. • Palmer, J.F., Hoffman R.E., 2001. Rating reliability and representation validty in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 54: 149-161. [CrossRef] • Palmer. J.F., 2008. The perceived effects of clearcutting in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. USA. Journal of Environmental Management 89: 167–183. [CrossRef] • Paquette. S., Damon. G., 2003. Changing ruralities. changing landscapes: exploring social recomposition using a multi-scale approach. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 425-444. [CrossRef] • Purcell, A.T., Lamb, R.J., 1984. Landscape perception: an examination and empirical investigation of two central issues in the area. Journal of Environmental Management 19: 31–63. • Rogge, E., Nevens, F., Gulinck, H., 2007. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 82: 159–174. [CrossRef] • Roth, M., 2006.Validating the use of Internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment—An empirical study from Germany . Landscape and Urban Planning 78(3): 179-192. [CrossRef] • Schroeder, H.W., 1988. Visual impact of hillside development: Comparison of measurements derived from aerial and ground-level photographs. Landscape and Urban Planning 15 (1-2): 119-126. [CrossRef] • Sevenant. M., Antrop M., 2009. Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 2889–2899. [CrossRef] • Tempesta, T., 2010. The perception of agrarian historical landscapes: A study of the Veneto plain in Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning 97: 258–272. [CrossRef] • Türk. Y.A., 2006. A method for integrated urban planning and design. KTU Science Institute. PhD Thesis. • Vouligny, É., Domon, G., Ruiz, J., 2009. An assessment of ordinary landscapes by an expert and by its residents: Landscape values in areas of intensive agricultural use. Land Use Policy 26: 890–900. [CrossRef] • Winchcombe, J., Revell, G., 2004. Farm Forestry and Landscape Architecture: A feasibility study. Joint Venture Agroforestry Program; RIRDC Publication 04/187. Canberra.