Mapping and Analysis of Literature on Spatial Legibility Research in Scopus Database (1981-2023)

Öz

The purpose of this article is to examine the literature on spatial legibility. The data of the study were obtained from the Scopus database. Publications related to spatial legibility were searched by keywords. The research covers the publications between 1981-2023. The analysis of the data consists, firstly, of the graphics and frequencies presented by the Scopus database, and secondly, the analysis of the data obtained from the R Studio Biblioshiny software program. According to the research findings, the most documents belong to the United States of America. There are publications in the most article types. Most global cited document is by Weisman. The most relevant words in the titles of reviewed publications are urban, legibility and city. The most relevant words in the keywords of reviewed publications are urban legibility, spatial syntax, spatial legibility, and wayfinding. In conclusion, this article presents a detailed literature on publications on spatial legibility. In the research, the spatial legibility research, which started with Kevin Lynch, has been examined in the process until today and reveals their mapping with R Studio-Bibliosiny software. As a suggestion, future research on spatial readability could focus on specific years and periods. In addition, different databases or different bibliometric analysis software can be used for analysis.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Spatial Legibility
• Scopus database
• Bibliometric Analysis
• R Studio-Biblioshiny
• Mapping

Kaynakça

1. Ahmadpoor, N., & Smith, A. D. (2020). Spatial knowledge acquisition and mobile maps: The role of environmental legibility. Cities, 101, 102700. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264275119314313
2. Akgün, S., Kiliçaslan, H., Özbalta, N. B., & Taşdelen, E. U. (2023). Fiziksel ve Sanal Müze Deneyimlerinde Mekânsal Okunabilirlik Üzerine Değerlendirmeler. Online Journal of Art and Design, 11(4). http://adjournal.net/articles/114/11417.pdf
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), 15258. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/22/15258
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), 9010. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9010
5. Appleyard, D. (1969). Why buildings are known: A predictive tool for architects and planners. Environment and Behavior, 1(2), 131-156. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001391656900100202
6. Ateş, M. (2022). Üsküdar’ın Kent İmgeleri Bağlamında Okunabilirliği. Kent Akademisi, 15(1), 223-244. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kent/issue/68903/1020409
7. Bafna, S. (2003). Space syntax: A brief introduction to its logic and analytical techniques. Environment and behavior, 35(1), 17-29. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916502238863
8. Belir, Ö. (2021). Simetri Eksenindeki İşaret Ögesinin Görme Engellinin Mekânsal Okumasına Etkisi. Megaron, 16(3), 574-583. https://jag.journalagent.com/megaron/pdfs/MEGARON_16_3_574_582.pdf Bozdağ, A., Gümüş, M.G., Gümüş, K., Durduran, S.S., (2020). Evaluating spatial legibility of the university campus using GIS. Aksaray University, Journal of Science and Engineering, 4(2): 127-147. http://asujse.aksaray.edu.tr/tr/download/article-file/1195133

9. Burkut, E. B. (2022), Çocuklarda Mekânsal Okunabilirlik Parametrelerinin Biçimsel, Bilişsel ve Dizimsel Yönleri, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü Mimarlık Anabilim Dalı Mimarlık Doktora Programı, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, İstanbul 2022. https://acikerisim.fsm.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/11352/4364
10. Cubukcu, E., & Nasar, J. L. (2005). Relation of physical form to spatial knowledge in largescale virtual environments. Environment and Behavior, 37(3), 397-417. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013916504269748
11. Dehghan, N., Moradi, A. M., & Memariyan, G. H. (2012). Comparing the dimensions of spatial legibility with wayfinding strategies. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 3, 2637-2646. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Narges-Dehghan-2/publication/355942595_Comparing_the_Dimensions_of_Spatial_Legibility_with_Wayfinding_Strategies/links/6185557c07be5f31b7485169/Comparing-the-Dimensions-of-Spatial-Legibility-with-Wayfinding-Strategies.pdf
12. Evans, G., 1980. Cognitive Mapping and Architecture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 474-478. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Cognitive-mapping-and-architecture.-Evans-Fellows/0b6f26fee5980f85ba7d004873f962fed6ef4602
13. Gärling, T., Lindberg, E., & Mäntylä, T. (1983). Orientation in buildings: Effects of familiarity, visual access, and orientation aids. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(1), 177. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1983-13824-001
14. Haghlesan, M. (2023). Analyzing the legibility of the spaces of urban metro stations using the method of space syntax (case study: El Goli and Kohen stations in Tabriz). Journal of Transportation Research. https://www.trijournal.ir/article_172605_en.html?lang=en
15. Haq, S., & Girotto, S. (2003). Ability and Intelligibility: Wayfinding and Environmental Cognition in the Designed Environment. The Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London, 68.1-68.20. https://www.spacesyntax.net/symposia-archive/SSS4/abstracts/68_HaqGirotto_abstract.pdf
16. Kang, Y., Fukahorı, K., Kubota, Y., & Gunawardena, G. M. W. L. (2017). A study on spatial legibility of street network around railway station. Journal of JSCE, 5(1), 87-100. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/journalofjsce/5/1/5_87/_pdf
17. Kitchin, R. M. (1994). Cognitive maps: What are they and why study them?. Journal of environmental psychology, 14(1), 1-19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027249440580194X
18. Köseoğlu, E. (2018). Mekânsal Okunabilirlik: Biçimsel. Dizimsel ve Öznel Boyutları, Istanbul: Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf Üniversitesi Yayınları. https://yayinevi.fsm.edu.tr/yayin/Mekansal-Okunabilirlik-Bicimsel-Dizimsel-ve-Oznel-Boyutlari
19. Köseoğlu, E., & Erinsel Önder, D. (2010). Mekânsal okunabilirlik kavramının çözümlenmesi. Yapı Dergisi, 52-56. https://acikerisim.fsm.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/11352/1859
20. Koseoglu, E., & Onder, D. E. (2011). Subjective and objective dimensions of spatial legibility. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1191-1195. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042811020568
21. Köseoğlu, E., & Yilmaz, E. (2023). Examining the interaction of perceived legibility and sense of familiarity in the streets of Hasköy, Beyoğlu. “LOKUM Journal of Art and Design”, 1(1), 13-25. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/lokum/issue/75884/1227600
22. Koseoglu, E. & Camas, V. M. (2017). Streetscape Perception: Interaction of Perceived Legibility and Sense of Security in the Streets of Hasköy, Beyoğlu . A+Arch Design International Journal of Architecture and Design , 3 (1) , 0-0 . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/aarch/issue/42330/509318
23. Li, R., & Klippel, A. (2016). Wayfinding behaviors in complex buildings: The impact of environmental legibility and familiarity. Environment and Behavior, 48(3), 482-510. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916514550243
24. Long, Y., Baran, P. K., & Moore, R. (2007, June). The role of space syntax in spatial cognition. In Proceedings of the sixth international space syntax symposium, Istanbul, Turkey (pp. 12-15). https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=f09dba9285b89be19af12d5bce199fdcdf83cd89
25. Long, Y. (2008). The relationships between objective and subjective evaluations of the urban environment: Space Syntax, cognitve maps, and urban legibility. https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/handle/1840.16/4411
26. Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262620017/the-image-of-the-city/
27. Mahdzar, S. S. S., & Safari, H. (2014). Legibility as a result of geometry space: Analyzing and comparing hypothetical model and existing space by space syntax. Life Science Journal, 11(8), 309-317. http://www.lifesciencesite.com/lsj/life1108/042_24489life110814_309_317.pdf
28. Nenci, A. M., De Rosa, A. S., Testa, G., & Carrus, G. (2000). Social and architectural legibility of the city. In People, places, and sustainabillity (pp. 25-37). https://iris.uniroma1.it/handle/11573/213283
29. O'Neill, M. J. (1991). Evaluation of a conceptual model of architectural legibility. Environment and Behavior, 23(3), 259-284. https://www.proquest.com/openview/6aa1f22fda054d3f74d8f39233dde80f/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1821084
30. Ozturk, A. C. (2017). Studies on Reading the Urban Centre via Cognitive Maps: The Example of Eskişehir, Turkey. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 226, 29-38. https://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/SDP17/SDP17003FU1.pdf
31. Safari, H., Moridani, F. F., & Mahdzar, S. S. (2016). Influence of geometry on legibility: An explanatory design study of visitors at the Kuala Lumpur City Center. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 5(4), 499-507. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209526351630036X
32. Siegel, A. W., & White, S. H. (1975). The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. Advances in child development and behavior, 10, 9-55. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065240708600075
33. Topcu, M., Cevrimli, B. A., & Geyikli, H. B. (2021). Syntactic Legibility of Image Elements: Eskişehir Case. MEGARON 2021;16(4):644-658 https://gcris.ktun.edu.tr/bitstream/20.500.13091/1690/1/MEGARON_16_4_644_658.pdf
34. 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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812033460
35. Weisman, J. (1981). Evaluating architectural legibility: Way-finding in the built environment. Environment and behavior, 13(2), 189-204. https://www.proquest.com/openview/e0ef347a7e8bc3684703807764280973/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1821084
36. Zmudzinska-Nowak, M. (2003). Searching for legible city form: Kevin Lynch's theory in contemporary perspective. Journal of urban technology, 10(3), 19-39. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1063073032000175390
37. URL-1. Web of Science (2023). Search, Retrieved (02.08.2023): https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/basic-search.
38. URL-2. Scopus, Retrieved (02.08.2023): https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic#basic
39. URL-3. Biblioshiny, Retrieved (02.08.2023): https://www.bibliometrix.org/home/index.php/layout/biblioshiny
40. URL-4 Cumhurbaşkanlığı Millet Kütüphanesi, Veritabanları https://mk.gov.tr/veritabanlari/Veritabanları%20Listesi/liste
41. URL-5 TÜBİTAK Erişimine Açık Elektronik Bilgi Kaynakları (Veri Tabanları) . https://www.ulakbim.gov.tr/yeniweb/vt/
42. URL-6 Bibliometrics: Tools and Software tps://liu.cwp.libguides.com/c.php?g=225325&p=4966525