Seçilmiş Kentsel İmge Ögelerinin Yapısal, Çevresel ve Algısal Performansı: Ordu Kent Merkezi Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme

Öz

Bu çalışma, Lynch’in (1960) kentsel imge kuramına dayanarak, Türkiye’nin Ordu kent merkezindeki seçilmiş kentsel imge ögelerinin yapısal, çevresel ve algısal performanslarını değerlendirmektedir. Araştırma; kamusal kullanımın, ticari faaliyetin, yaya hareketliliğinin, tarihi yapıların ve kıyı alanlarının yoğunlaştığı Bülbül Deresi-Rıhtım arasındaki kentsel alana odaklanmaktadır. Yollar, sınırlar, bölgeler, odak noktaları ve işaret ögeleri olmak üzere beş kategoride toplam 50 kentsel imge ögesinin belirlenmesinde saha gözlemleri, haritalar, uydu görüntüleri, saha fotoğrafları ve önceki çalışmalardan yararlanılmıştır. Belirlenen ögeler, peyzaj mimarlığı ve mimarlık alanlarında deneyimli üç uzman tarafından, kullanıcı algısını doğrudan ölçmeyen uzman temelli bir ölçüt değerlendirmesi kapsamında puanlanmıştır. Her öge iki yapısal, iki çevresel ve iki algısal gösterge olmak üzere altı kriter kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir: Puanlar 1-5 ölçeğinde verilmiş ve ortalama değer İmge Gücü Skoru olarak hesaplanmıştır. Sonuçlar, kentsel imge gücünün şehir merkezinde eşit olarak dağılmadığını göstermektedir. Güçlü imge ögeleri, kıyı şeridi, rekreasyonel kıyı bölgeleri, tarihi-sembolik simge yapılar ve okunaklı yaya aksları çevresinde yoğunlaşmıştır. Buna karşılık, zayıf tanımlanmış düğüm noktaları, görsel olarak parçalanmış ticari alanlar ve zayıf mekânsal sürekliliğe sahip sokaklar daha düşük imge gücü göstermektedir. Bu sonuçlar, kentsel imgenin yalnızca fiziksel varlıkla değil, aynı zamanda süreklilik, çevresel kalite, algısal netlik ve sembolik anlamla da şekillendiğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İmge gücü skoru
• Kentsel imgeler
• Kentsel okunabilirlik
• Lynch (1960) kuramı
• Performans analizi

Structural, Environmental, and Perceptual Performance of Selected Urban Image Elements: An Evaluation of Ordu City Center

Öz

This study, based on Lynch's (1960) theory of urban imagery, evaluates the structural, environmental, and perceptual performances of selected urban image elements in the city center of Ordu, Türkiye. The research focuses on the urban area between Bülbül Creek and the Embankment, where public use, commercial activity, pedestrian mobility, historical structures, and coastal areas are concentrated. Field observations, maps, satellite imagery, field photographs, and previous studies were used to identify a total of 50 urban image elements in five categories: paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks. The identified elements were scored by three experts experienced in landscape architecture and architecture, using an expert-based metric that does not directly measure user perception. Each element was evaluated using six criteria: two structural, two environmental, and two perceptual indicators. Scores were given on a scale of 1-5, and the average value was calculated as the Image Strength Score. The results show that the urban image strength is not evenly distributed in the city center. Strong image elements are concentrated around the coastline, recreational coastal areas, historical-symbolic landmarks, and legible pedestrian axes. In contrast, poorly defined nodes, visually fragmented commercial areas, and streets with weak spatial continuity show lower image strength. These results demonstrate that urban image is shaped not only by physical presence but also by continuity, environmental quality, perceptual clarity, and symbolic meaning.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Image strength score
• Urban images
• Urban readability
• Lynch (1960) theory
• Performance analysis

Kaynakça

1. Abeynayake, T., Meetiyagoda, L., Kankanamge, N., & Mahanama, P.K.S. (2022). Imageability and legibility: cognitive analysis and visibility assessment in Galle Heritage City. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 46(2), 126-136. https://doi.org/10.3846/jau.2022.16177
2. Ahmadpoor, N., Smith, A.D., & Heath, T. (2021). Rethinking legibility in the era of digital mobile maps: An empirical study. Journal of Urban Design, 26(3), 296–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2020.1777847
3. Askarizad, R., & He, J. (2022). Perception of spatial legibility and its association with human mobility patterns: An empirical assessment of the historical districts in Rasht, Iran. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(22), Article 15258. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192215258
4. Askarizad, R., He, J., & Khotbehsara, E.M. (2022). The legibility efficacy of historical neighborhoods in creating a cognitive map for citizens. Sustainability, 14(15), Article 9010. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159010
5. Bachleitner, K. (2022). Collective memory and the social creation of identities: Linking the past with the present and future. Progress in Brain Research, 274(1), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2022.07.002
6. Belanche, D., Casaló, L.V., & Rubio, M.Á. (2021). Local place identity: A comparison between residents of rural and urban communities. Journal of Rural Studies, 82, 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.003
7. Boeing, G. (2021). Spatial information and the legibility of urban form: Big data in urban morphology. International Journal of Information Management, 56, Article 102013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.09.009
8. Chang Chien, Y.M., Carver, S., & Comber, A. (2021). An exploratory analysis of expert and nonexpert-based landscape aesthetics evaluations: A case study from Wales. Land, 10(2), Article 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020192

9. Chen, S., Sleipness, O., Christensen, K., Yang, B., Park, K., Knowles, R., Yang, Z., & Wang, H. (2024). Exploring associations between social interaction and urban park attributes: Design guideline for both overall and separate park quality enhancement. Cities, 145, Article 104714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104714
10. Choi, H.S., Bruyns, G., Reeve, A., & Cui, M. (2023). The negotiated public realm in the contemporary city: Hybrid walkable urban networks of Hong Kong. City, Territory and Architecture, 10, Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-023-00194-5
11. Cocquyt, C.M., Youngson, N., & Sutton, J.E. (2022). Sex differences and cognitive maps: Studies in the lab don't always reflect cognitive map accuracy in everyday life. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 3, Article 896081. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2022.896081
12. Filomena, G., Verstegen, J.A., & Manley, E. (2019). A computational approach to ‘The Image of the City’. Cities, 89, 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.006
13. Fonseca, F., Papageorgiou, G., Tondelli, S., Ribeiro, P., Conticelli, E., Jabbari, M., & Ramos, R. (2022). Perceived walkability and respective urban determinants: Insights from Bologna and Porto. Sustainability, 14(15), Article 9089. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159089
14. Gebremariam, D., Kuhilen, T., Seboka, H., & Grum, B. (2024). Effect of sidewalk design and obstructions on pedestrian mobility: A case study of the main streets of Mekelle City, Northern Ethiopia. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2024, Article 5672280. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/5672280
15. Han, Y., Zhong, T., Yeh, A.G.O., Zhong, X., Chen, M., & Lü, G. (2023). Mapping seasonal changes of street greenery using multi-temporal street-view images. Sustainable Cities and Society, 92, Article 104498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104498
16. Ingi, D., Pinho, P., Bhusal, P., & Kyttä-Pirjola, M. (2026). Examining public participation GIS (PPGIS) as a tool for collecting perceptions of outdoor lighting. Journal of Urban Management, 15(4), 1744–1756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2026.04.002
17. Karabörk, R.N., & Yeşil, M. (2023). Kent imgelerinin kent yaşayanlarının zihin haritaları üzerinden değerlendirilmesi: Ordu ili örneği. In Ö. Demirel, A. Gül, K. Günçe, & S. Seydoşoğlu (Eds.), IV-International Rural Areas and Ecology Congress within the Framework of Sustainable Development (RUDESU2023): Conference proceedings book (pp. 479–493). IKSAD Publishing House. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10041278
18. Karabörk, R.N. (2024). Mekân dizimi ve zihinsel haritalama yöntemleri ile Ordu kent merkezinin mekan okunabilirliğinin değerlendirilmesi (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Ordu Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı, Ordu.
19. Koseoglu, E. & Onder, D.E. (2011). Subjective and objective dimensions of spatial legibility. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1191-1195. https://doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.231
20. Kumar, S., Hajela, A., & Singh, E. (2023). Legibility in a city: an overview of the factors affecting perceptions of way-finding in the built environment. In: Al Khaddar, R., Singh, S.K., Kaushika, N.D., Tomar, R.K., Jain, S.K. (eds) Recent Developments in Energy and Environmental Engineering. TRACE 2022. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 333. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1388-6_37
21. Larkin, A., Gu, X., Chen, L., & Hystad, P. (2021). Predicting perceptions of the built environment using GIS, satellite, and street view image approaches. Landscape and Urban Planning, 216, Article 104257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104257
22. Liu, M., Zhang, B., Luo, T., Liu, Y., Portnov, B.A., Trop, T., Jiao, W., Liu, H., Li, Y., & Liu, Q. (2022). Evaluating street lighting quality in residential areas by combining remote sensing tools and a survey on pedestrians’ perceptions of safety and visual comfort. Remote Sensing, 14(4), 826. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14040826
23. Llinares, C., Higuera-Trujillo, J.L., Montañana, A., & Castilla, N. (2020). Improving the pedestrian’s perceptions of safety on street crossings: Psychological and neurophysiological effects of traffic lanes, artificial lighting, and vegetation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 8576. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228576
24. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. MIT Press.
25. Marković, S., Alfirević, Đ., Simonović Alfirević, S., & Nikolić, S. (2025). Principles for achieving legibility in residential spaces: a synthesis of cognitive and perceptual approaches. Buildings, 15(8), 1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081243
26. Mills, A. (2010). Streets of memory: Landscape, tolerance, and national identity in Istanbul. University of Georgia Press.
27. Natapov, A., Czamanski, D., & Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. (2018). A network approach to link visibility and urban activity location. Networks and Spatial Economics, 18, 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-018-9411-4
28. Omer, I., Goldblatt, R., Talmor, K., & Roz, A. (2006). Enhancing the legibility of virtual cities by means of residents’ urban ımage: a wayfinding support system. In: Portugali, J. (eds) Complex Artificial Environments. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-29710-3_16
29. Oyama, Y. (2024). Spatial city image and its formative factors: A street-based neighborhood cognition analysis. Cities, 149, 104898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.104898
30. Paydar, M., & Kamani-Fard, A. (2016). Perceived legibility in relation to path choice of commuters in central business district. Urban Design International, 21, 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2016.7
31. Półrolniczak, M., & Kolendowicz, L. (2021). The influence of weather and level of observer expertise on suburban landscape perception. Building and Environment, 202, 108016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108016
32. Qi, J., Mazumdar, S., & Vasconcelos, A.C. (2024). Understanding the relationship between urban public space and social cohesion: A systematic review. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 7(2), 155–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-024-00204-5
33. Quesnot, T., & Roche, S. (2015). Measure of landmark semantic salience through geosocial data streams. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 4(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi4010001
34. Rossi, A. (1982). The architecture of the city; Ghirardo, D.; Ockman, J., Translators; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK.
35. Ruan, H., & Prominski, M. (2023). Understanding and developing locality with a non-representational approach: Cases of waterfront spaces along the river Rhine. River Research and Applications, 39(7), 1356–1366. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3923
36. Silavi, T., Hakimpour, F., Claramunt, C., & Nourian, F. (2017). The legibility and permeability of cities: Examining the role of spatial data and metrics. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 6(4), 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6040101
37. Simonet, M., Vater, C., Abati, C., Zhong, S., Mavros, P., Schwering, A., & Krukar, J. (2025). Probing mental representations of space through sketch mapping: a scoping review. Cogn. Research, 10, 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-025-00667-w
38. T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı. (2025). Ordu İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü. https://ordu.ktb.gov.tr/TR-106499/cografya.html , Erişim Tarihi: 13.08.2026.
39. Tayanç, M. (2021). Kent imgesi ve kentli kimliği: şanlıurfa kent imgeleri üzerine bir araştırma (Vol. 13). DBY Yayınları.
40. Tekeli, İ. (1991). Bir kentin kimliği üzerine düşünceler. Kent planlaması konuşmaları içinde. Ankara: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası.
41. Tepe, H.Ş., & Yeşil, P. (2024). Ordu ili turizm alanlarının zihin haritalama yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi ve deneyimle değişen turizm alanı algısının incelenmesi. Ordu Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 14(2), 333-346. https://doi.org/10.54370/ordubtd.1470749
42. Topal, A.K. (2004). Kavramsal olarak kent nedir ve Türkiye’de kent neresidir? Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(1), 276–294.
43. Topcu, K.D., & Topcu, M. (2012). Visual presentation of mental images in urban design education: Cognitive maps. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.210
44. Triponescu, A., Dragan, A., & Crețan, R. (2024). Mapping perception: analyzing mental representations of urban space in Timișoara, Romania. Urban Science, 8(4), 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8040205
45. Wang, H., Xie, B., Zeng, Y., Liu, A., Liu, B., & Qin, L. (2025a). Intergenerational transmission of collective memory in public spaces: a case study of Menghe, a Historic and Cultural Town. Sustainability, 17(19), 8596. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198596
46. Wang, Z., Zhang, W., & Huang, Y. (2025b). Nonlinear perceptual thresholds and trade-offs of visual environment in historic districts: evidence from street view ımages in Shanghai. Sustainability, 17(24), 11075. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172411075
47. Yeşiltepe, D., Conroy Dalton, R., & Ozbil Torun, A. (2021). Landmarks in wayfinding: A review of the existing literature. Cognitive Processing, 22, 369–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-021-01012-x
48. Zhao, T., Liang, X., Biljecki, F., Tu, W., Cao, J., Li, X., & Yi, S. (2025). Quantifying seasonal bias in street view imagery for urban form assessment: A global analysis of 40 cities. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 120, 102302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2025.102302