Rekreasyon Alanlarının Görsel Peyzaj Kalitesi Yönünden Değerlendirilmesi; Erzurum Örneği

Öz

Araştırma Erzurum kenti ve yakın çevresindeki Tekederesi (Palandöken) Göleti, Abdurrahman Gazi Türbesi, Serçeme Vadisi, Tortum Gölü ve Şelalesi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi 6 Nolu Kuyu Deneme İstasyonu, Dumlu rekreasyon alanlarında yürütülmüştür. Araştırmanın amacı; Erzurum kenti ve yakın çevresindeki bazı rekreasyon alanlarının görsel peyzaj kalitesi yönünden değerlendirilmesidir. Farklı peyzaj karakterine sahip alanlarda görsel kalitenin belirlenmesi yönünde tercihleri elde etmek üzere, 120 kişi ile görsel kalite analiz çalışması yürütülmüştür. Bu amaçla alanları temsil eden tipik görüntüler tercih edilmiş, her bir alanın 8’er adet fotoğrafı kullanılarak, toplam 6x8=48 adet fotoğrafla görsel peyzaj kalitesi değerlendirilmiştir. Katılımcılar tarafından her bir fotoğrafa, algısal parametreler göz önüne alınarak puan verilmiş, görsel kalite ortaya konmuştur. En yüksek görsel peyzaj kalitesi Tekederesi (Palandöken) Göleti 4 (TD4)’e ait olurken, Tortum Gölü ve Şelalesi 2 (TO2) ve Tekederesi (Palandöken) Göleti 8 (TD8) onu izlemiştir. Görsel peyzaj kalitesi ile doğallık, çeşitlilik, uyum, açıklık, gizem, perspektif, güven, düzen ve rekreasyonel değer parametrelerinin ilişkili olduğu saptanmıştır. Ayrıca peyzaj görsel kalitesi ile su kaynağı tipi, su oranı, doğallık derecesi gibi peyzaj özellikleri arasında da ilişki olduğu belirlenmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Görsel peyzaj kalitesi, manzara peyzajı değerlendirme, recreation, Erzurum

Evaluation of Recreation Areas for Visual Landscape Quality; Sample of Erzurum, Turkey

Öz

This study was conducted over the recreation areas in Erzurum city and its proximity; Tekederesi (or

Palandöken) pond, surrounding of Abdurrahman Gazi Tomb, Serçeme Valley, Tortum Lake and waterfall, picnic

area at 6th experimental station of Ataturk University Agriculture faculty and Dumlu recreation area. The objective

of the study was to evaluate some recreation areas in Erzurum city and its proximity for visual landscape quality. In

order to determine the visual quality in the areas corresponding different landscape characteristics, a visual quality

assessment study was performed with the participation of 120 users who presented their preferences on the areas.

For this aim, images typical of the areas under the scope of the study were obtained and among numerous of them,

only eight images for each area and totally 48 images were selected for assessment analysis. Participants scored

each images considering perceptual parameters and visual quality was determined. According to the results of the

analysis, the highest visual landscape quality point was given to the image of Tekederesi (or Palandöken) pond 4

(TD4), which was followed by the images of Tortum lake and waterfall 2 (TO2) and Tekederesi (or Palandöken)

pond 8 (TD8). It was found that there was statistically significant association between visual landscape quality and

visual parameters of naturalness, diversity, coherence, legibility, mystery, perspective, confidence, order, scenic

beauty and recreational value. An additional relationship was determined to exist between again landscape visual

quality and landscape characteristics, such as water reserve type, water amount, and naturalness degree.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Visual landscape quality,evaluation of scenic landscape,recreation,Erzurum

Kaynakça

1. Acar, C., Kurdoğlu B.C., 2005. Kaçkar Dağları Milli Parkında Gör- sel Kalite Değerlendirmesi. Korunan Doğal Alanlar Sempozyu- mu, 219-226, SDÜ,Isparta.
2. Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J.F., Canas-Madueno, J.A., Ruiz-Aviles, P., 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Lans- cape and Urban Planning, 69, 115-125.
3. Arthur, L.M., Daniel T.C., Boster R.S.,1977. Scenic assessment: An overview. Landscape and Planning, Volume 4, 109-129.
4. Bergen, S.D., Ulbricht C.A., Fridley J L., Ganter M.A.,1995. The validity of computer-generated graphic images of forest land- scape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 15, Issue 2, 135-146.
5. Brown, T., 1994. Conceptualizing smoothness and density as land- scape elements in visual resource management. Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 30, Issues 1-2, 49-58.
6. Bulut, Z., Yılmaz, H., 2007. Determination of lanscape beautie through visual quality assesssment method; a case study for Kemaliye (Erzutum-Turkey). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (In Press).
7. Clay, G.R., Daniel T.C., 2000. Scenic landscape assesssment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49, 1–13.
8. 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.

9. Daniel, T.C., 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century . Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 54, Issues 1-4, 267-281.
10. Dearden, P., 1981. Public participation and scenic quality analysis. Landscape and Planning, Volume 8, Issue 1, 3-19.
11. Dearden, P., 1984. Factors influencing landscape preferences: An empirical investigation . Landscape and Planning, Volume 11, Issue 4, 293-306
12. Fuante de Val, G., Atauri A.J., Lucio J.V., 2006. Relationship bet- ween landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean- climate landscapes. Landscape and Planning, Volume 77, Issue 4, 393-407.
13. Habron, D.,1998. Visual perception of wild land in Scotland. Land- scape and Urban Planning 42,45-56.
14. Hagerhall, C.M.,2001. Consensus In Landscape Preference Judge- ments. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 21, 83-92 .
15. Hull, R.B.IV, Revell G.R.B.,1989. Cross-cultural comparison of landscape scenic beauty evaluations: A case study in Bali . Jour- nal of Environmental sychology, Volume 9,Issue3, 177-191.
16. Kaplan, R., Talbot J.F., 1988. Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: A review and recent findings. Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 15, Issues 1-2, 107-117.
17. Meitner, M.J., 2004. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Can- yon: relating perceptual judgments to locations. Landscape and Urban Planning 68, 3–13.
18. Ode, A.K., Fry G.L.A., 2002. Visual aspects in urban woodland ma- nagement.Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 1, 15–24.
19. Palmer, J. F., Hoffman R.E., 2001. Rating reliability and represen- tation validty in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 54,149-161.
20. Parsons, R., 1995. Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental aesthetics: Conundrum, canärd or curiosity . Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 32, Issue 3, 227-244.
21. Real, E., Arce C., Sabucedo J.M., 2000. Classıfıcatıon of landscapes usıng quantıtatıve and categorıcal data, and predıctıon of theır scenıc beauty ın north-western spaın. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20, 355-373.
22. Roth, M., 2006.Validating the use of Internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment—An empirical study from Ger- many . Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(3), 179-192.
23. Steinitz C., 1979. Simulating alternative policies for implementing the Massachusetts scenic and recreational rivers act: The North River demonstration Project. Landscape and Planning, Volume 6, Issue 1, 51-89.
24. Tahvanainen, L., Tyrvainen L., Ihalainen M., Vuorela N., Kolehma- inen., 2001. Forestmanagement and public perceptions -visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning 53, 53-70.
25. Tahvanainen, L., Ihalainen M., Hietala-Koivu R., Kolehmainen O., Tyrvainen L., Nousiainen I., Helenius J., 2002. Measures of the EU Agri-Environmental Protection Scheme (GAEPS) and their impacts on the visual acceptability of Finnish agricultural land- scapes. Journal of Environmental Management 66, 213-227.
26. Tips, W.E.J., Savasdisara T., 1986.The influence of the environmen- tal background of subjects on their landscape preference evalua- tion. Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume13, 125-133.
27. Van den Berg A.E., Koole S.L., 2006. New wilderness in the Net- herlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature deve- lopment landscapes Landscape and Urban Planning.
28. Williamson, D.N., Calder S.W.,1979. Visual resource management of Victoria’s forests: A new concept for Australia . Landscape and Planning, Volume 6, Issues 3-4, 313-341.
29. Wright, G., 1974. Appraisal of visual landscape qualities in a region slected for accelerated growth. Lanscpe Plan., 1:307-327.
30. Yılmaz, H., Yılmaz, S., Yıldız, N.D., 2003. Kars Kent Halkının Rekreasyonel Talep ve Eğilimlerinin Belirlenmesi. Atatürk Ü. Zir. Fak. Der. 34 (4), 353-360.