Kamusal Alanların Mekânsal Kalite Parametreleri Temelinde Görsel Peyzaj Değerinin Belirlenmesi: İstanbul/ Maltepe Örneği

Meltem Coşaner Tonyalı; Tuğba Kiper

doi:10.34186/klujes.1489408

Kamusal Alanların Mekânsal Kalite Parametreleri Temelinde Görsel Peyzaj Değerinin Belirlenmesi: İstanbul/ Maltepe Örneği

Öz

Kamusal alanlar; estetik, rekreasyon, miras değerleri ile kentsel kimlik ve kalitenin temel bileşenidirler. Kamusal alanlara yönelik kimlik ve kalitenin değerlendirilmesinde de görsel algıya dayalı mekansal tercihler belirleyici olmaktadır. Bu kapsamda çalışmada “Kamusal alanlarda görsel kimlik ve mekansal kalite ilişkili olup, görsel algıya dayalı olarak memnuniyet düzeyinin analiz edilmesi mekansal kalitenin belirlenmesinde etkilidir" hipotezi çerçevesinde İstanbul/Maltepe İlçesi özelinde kamusal alanların geçmiş ve günümüz görüntülerine dayalı olarak görsel peyzaj kalitesinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla; “Kamusal alanlarda mekansal kaliteye dayalı parametreler ile görsel peyzaj nasıl ilişkilendirilebilir?” ve “Kamusal alanlarda mekansal kalite unsurlarının tanımlanmasına dayalı olarak görsel kalite nasıl değerlendirilebilir?” sorularına yanıt aranmıştır. Çalışma, mekansal kalite parametrelerine dayalı olarak geliştirilen görsel kalite değerlendirmesi ana yöntemi kurgusu çerçevesinde Likert Ölçeği kullanılarak bir fotoğraf anketi yaklaşımı esasına dayandırılmıştır. Bu çerçevede İstanbul/Maltepe İlçesi özelinde kamusal alanların geçmiş ve günümüz görüntülerine dayalı olarak uzman grubu tarafından görsel açıdan düşük-orta-yüksek nitelikli peyzajlar belirlenmiş, mekânsal kalite parametreleri ile görsel algıya dayalı tercihler arasındaki ilişkiler saptanmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

Ai, D., Wang, H., Kuang, D., Zhang, X. & Rao, X. (2024). Measuring pedestrians' mo&ment and building a visual-based attracti&ness map of public spaces using smartphones. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 108, 102070. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/ j. compenvurbsys.2023.102070.
Alan, S. (2009). Measuring the user experience. Software Quality Professional. 11, 54. https://www. proquest. com/ scholarly-journals/measuring-userexperience/ docview /2140 67 293/ se-2.
Ardıçoğlu, R. (2024). Tarihi kentsel mekânlarda görsel ve işitsel algının değerlendirilmesi: Palermo Örneği. The Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 14 (1), 162-179.
Aşur, F. (2022). Determination of user preferences on visual landscape at urban context: Van/Edremit (Turkey) Example. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 31(2), 1543-1550.
Carmona, M. (2010). Contemporary public space, part two: classification. Journal of Urban Design, 15(2), 157-173.
Carr, S. (1992). Public space. Cambridge University Press.
Cassatella, C. (2011). Assessing visual and social perceptions of landscape. Cassatella, C., Peano, A., (Eds.). Landscape Indicators Assessing and Monitoring Landscape Quality (p.105-140). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Cengiz Taşlı, T., Çelik Turan, A., Eren, B. & Dinç, S. (2023). Kentsel bellek alanlarında mekansal algı değerlendirmesi: Çanakkale Kent Merkezi örneği. Trakya Mimarlık ve Tasarım Dergisi (Kapu), 3(1), 1-25.

Clifton, K., Ewing, R., Knaap, G.J. & Song, Y. (2008). Quantitative analysis of urban form. Journal of Urbanism, 1(1), 5-18.
Dai, L., Zheng, C., Dong, Z., Yao, Y., Wang, R., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Zhang, J., Song, X. & Guan, Q. (2021). Analyzing the correlation between visual space and residents' psychology in Wuhan, China Using Street-view ımages and deep-learning technique. City and Environment Interactions, 11,100069. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j. cacint.2021.100069.
De Lucio, J.V., Mohamadian, M., Ruiz, J.P., Banayas, J. & Bernaldez, F.G. (1996). Visual landscape exploration as revealed by eye movement tracking. Landsc. Urban Plan, 34, 135–142.
Dodman, D.R. (2004). Nature, power and participation: An exploration of ecology and equity in Kingston, Jamaica. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford.
Ebenberger, M. & Arnberger, A. (2019). Exploring visual preferences for structural attributes of urban forest stands for restoration and heat relief,. Urban For. Urban Green., 41, 272-282.
English Heritage (2012). Seeing the history in the view. Retrieved from https://thegardenstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/EH-Seeing-the-History-in-the-View-with-revision-note-2012-1.pdf
European Council (2000). European Landscape Convention, European Council. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/landscape/the-european-landscape-convention
Ewing, R. & Clemente, O. (2012). Measuring urban design. metric for liveable places, (p. 183). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Fairclough, G., Herlin, IS. & Swanwick, C. (2018). Routledge Handbook of Landscape Character Assessment, (p. 312) Routledge.
Falihin, M. & N. Hanita, N. M. (2016). Roles of public art in Malaysian urban landscape towards ımproving quality of life: between aesthetic and functional value. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 222, 872-88.
Fathi, M.S. & Masnavi, M.R. (2014). Assessing environmental aesthetics of roadside vegetation and senic beauty of highway landscape: Preferences and perception of motorists. Int. J. Environ. Res., 8, 941–952.
Foster, N. (2003). Architecture and sustainability. Retrieved from http://www.fosterandpartners.com/media/ 546486/essay13.pdf.
Gavrilidis, A.A., Ciocănea, C.M., Niţă, M.R., Onose, D.A. & Năstase, I.I. (2016). Urban landscape quality ındex –planning tool for evaluating urban landscapes and ımproving the quality of life. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 32, 155 – 167.
Gehl, J. (1989). A changing street life in a changing society. Places, 6 (8), 8-17.
Guan, X. (2023). The development and transformation of public space from the perspective of spatial flow. ICMETSS 2022, ASSEHR, 141–148.
Hadavi, S. & R. Kaplan, M.R. (2018). Hunter how does perception of nearby nature affect multiple aspects of neighbourhood satisfaction and use patterns? Landscape Research, 43 (3), 360-379.
Hu, X., Zou, X. & Fan, H. (2023). Analysis of landscape influencing factors of urban waterfront greenways based on the scenic beauty estimation method, Taking Tongjian Lake in Hangzhou as an example. Front. Earth Sci., 11, 1211775. https://doi.org/10. 3389/ feart.2023.1211775
Ivanov, R. (2017). An approach for developing indoor navigation systems for visually impaired people using building information modeling. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, 9 (4), 449-467.
İnceoğlu, M. & Aytuğ, A. (2009). Kentsel mekanda kalite kavramı. Megaron, 4(3), 131-146.
Jana, M.K. & De, T. (2015). Visual pollution can have a deep degrading effect on urban and suburban community: A study in Few Places of Bengal, India, with special reference to unorganized billboards. Eur. Sci. J., 8, 94–101.
Jaśkiewicz, M. (2015). Place attachment, place ıdentity and aesthetic appraisal of urban landscape polish. Psychological Bulletin, 46(4), 573–578. https://doi.org/10.1515/ppb-2015-0063
Jin, G., Peng, J., Zhang, L. & Zhang, Z. (2023). Understanding land for high-quality development. J. Geogr. Sci. 33, 217–221. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13010103
Johansson, M., Sternudd, C. & Ferreira, I. (2015). The walkshop: A tool to ıntegrate research on human aspects of sustainable urban design in teaching. Högre Utbild., 5, 145–157.
Kentsel Tasarım Rehberi (2016). Kentsel Tasarım Rehberleri / Araştırma ve Tanımlama. Cilt I, Ankara: TC. Çevre & Şehircilik Bakanlığı, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, Kentsel Tasarım Uygulama & Araştırma Merkezi.
Kerebel, A., Gélinas, N., Déry, S. & Voigt, A.S. (2019). Munson landscape aesthetic modelling using bayesian networks: Conceptual framework and participatory indicator weighting. Landscape and Urban Planning, 185, 258-271.
Kırkık Aydemir, K.P., Çelikyay, S. & Sarar, Y. (2022). The ımportance of threasholds in visual perception assesment: examples of İstanbul-Maçka Street. Journal of Current Researches on Social Sciences, 12 (3), 259-282.
Kürkçüoğlu, E. & Ocakçı, M. (2015). Kentsel dokuda mekânsal yönelme üzerine bir algı-davranış çalışması: Kadıköy Çarşı Bölgesi. Megaron Journal. 10(3), 365-388.
Lange, E. & Legwaila, I. (2012). Visual landscape research–o&rview and outlook. Chinese Landsc. Archit., 28, 5–14.
Lynch, K. (1984). Reconsidering the ımage of the city. Rodwin, L., Hollister, R.M. (Eds.), Cities of the Mind: Images and themes of the City in the Social Science (pp. 151-161), New York: Plenum Press.
Maltepe Belediyesi (2022). Maltepe Belediyesi arşivi. Maltepe Belediyesi.
Martins Gnecco, V., Pigliautile, I. & Pisello A.L. (2023). Long-term thermal comfort monitoring via wearable sensing techniques: Correlation between environmental metrics and subjecti& perception. Sensors, 23 (2), 576.
Mehta, V. (2014). Evaluating public space. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 53-88.
Misthos, L.M., Krassanakis, V., Merlemis, N. & Kesidis, A.L. (2023). Modeling the visual landscape: a review on approaches, methods and techniques. Sensors, 23(19), 8135. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/s23198135
Mohamed, N., Othman, N. & Ariffin, M.H. (2012). Value of nature in life: Landscape visual quality assessment at rainforest trail, Penang. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 50, 667–674.
Moulaert, F., Van Dyck, B., Khan, A.Z. & Schreurs., J. (2013). Building a meta-framework to ‘address’ spatial quality. International Planning Studies, 18 (3–4), 389–409.
Nadal, L. (2000). Discourses of urban public space, USA 1960–1995 A historical critique. [Ph.D. Thesis], Columbia University, New York, USA.
Nasar, J.L. (1990). The evaluative ımage of the city. J. Am. Plan. Assoc., 56, 41–53.
Nijhuis, S. & Reitsma, M. (2011). Landscape policy and visual landscape assessment: the province of Noord-Holland as A case study. Research in Urbanism Series, 2, 229–259.
Nijhuis, S. (2011). Visual research in landscape architecture. Res. Urban. Ser. 2, 103–145.
Nijhuis, S., Nijhuis, S., Van, LR. & Antrop, M. (2011). Exploring visual landscapes. Introduction. Research in Urbanism Series., 2(1), 15–39.
Onuncu Kalkınma Planı (2013). Onuncu Kalkınma Planı. Ankara: T.C. Kalkınma Bakanlığı.
Perovic, S. & Folic N. K. (2012).Visual perception of public open spaces in Niksic. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 68, 921-933.
Project for Public Spaces (PPS) (2000). How to turn a place around: a handbook of creating successful public spaces. New York: Project For Public Space. Retrieved from https://www.pps.org/
Qi, Z., Duan, J., Su, H., Fan, Z. & Lan, W. (2023). Using crowdsourcing ımages to assess visual quality of urban landscapes: A case study of Xiamen Island. Ecological Indicators, 154, 110793. http://doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110793
Ringas, D., Christopoulou, E. & Stefanidakis, M. (2011). Urban memory in space and time. Styliaras, G., Koukopoulos D., Lazarinis, F. (Eds.), Handbook of research on technologies and cultural heritage. Information Science Reference.
Rossetti, T., Lobel, H., Rocco, V. & Hurtubia, R. (2019). Explaining subjecti& perceptions of public spaces as a function of the built environment: A massi& data approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 181, 169-178.
Sharma, V. (2020). Visual ıdentity as a solution to urban challenges in.Mumbai India. Feb 06-07, Part VII.
Sottini, V.A., Barbierato, E., Bernetti , I., Capecchi, I., Cipollaro, M., Sacchelli, S. & Saragosa, C. (2018). Urban landscape assessment: A perceptual approach combining virtual reality and crowdsourced photo geodata. AESTIMUM, 73, 147-171.
Stamps, A.E. (2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24 (1), 1-16.
Subiza-Pérez, M., Hauru, K., Korpela, K., Haapala, A. & Lehvävirta, S. (2019). Percei&d environmental aesthetic qualities scale (PEAQS) – A self-report tool for the evaluation of green-blue spaces. Urban For. Urban Green., 43, 12638. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.ufug.2019.126383
Swietek, A.R. & Zumwal, M. (2023). Visual capital: evaluating building-le&l visual landscape quality at scale. Landscape and Urban Planning, 240, 104880. https://doi. org/ 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104880
Tak (2018). Yaşayan sokak rehberi. Tak Kartal Tasarım Araştırma Katılım (s. 152). Kartal Belediyesi yayını. https://kentselstrateji.com/.
Tang, J. & Long, Y. 2018. Measuring visual quality of street space and its temporal variation: Methodology and its application in the Hutong Area in Beijing. Landsc. Urban Plan., 191, 103436. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2018.09.015
Tudor, C. & England, N. (2014). An approach to landscape character assessment. London: Natural England, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go&rnment/uploads/ system/ uploads / attachment_data/ file/691184/ landscape-character-assessment.pdf.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre (2011). Recommendation on the historic urban landscape. Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.org/en/hul/.
Url 1 (2023). Erişim adresi: https://www.soylentidergi.com/kultur-101-antik-yunanda-kulturel-yasam-nasildi/
Url 2 (2023). Erişim adresi: https://yapidergisi.com/kamusal-alan%E2%80%89- %E2%80%89ozel-alan-etkilesimi/
Url 3 (2023). Erişim adresi: Urban Development. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/overview
Url 4 (2023). Erişim adresi: https://www.hafencity.com/en/overview/about-hafencity
Url 5 (2023). Erişim adresi: https://sourceable.net/stunning-forshaw-opens-on-sydneys-biggest-urban-renewal-project/
Url 6 (2023). Erişim adresi https://www.publicspace.org/works/-/project/k127-zollverein-park
Uzun, M. (2021). Antropojenik kaynaklı jeomorfolojik değişimlerin oluşmasındaki faktörlerin coğrafi analizi: Maltepe İlçesi- İstanbul örneği. Marmara Üniversitesi Öneri Dergisi, 16 (56), 389-418.
Ünker, A. (2013). Fotograflarla dünden bugüne Maltepe. İstanbul: Maltepe Belediyesi Kültür Yayını.
Vlad, L.B. (2009). Urban aesthetics: emergence and development. Theor. Empir. Res. Urban Manag., 4, 73–78.
Vukomanovic, J., Singh, K.K., Petrasova, A. & Vogler, J.B. (2018). Not seeing the forest for the trees: Modeling exurban viewscapes with LiDAR. Landsc. Urban Plan. 170, 169–176.
Wartmann, F.M., Frick, J., Kienast, F. & Hunziker, M. (2021). Factors influencing visual landscape quality percei&d by the public. results from a national survey. Landsc. Urban Plan. 208, 104024. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.104024.
Yun,Y. & Malek, N.A. (2024). Research on the application evaluation system of IP visual ımages in leisure agricultural landscape settings (pp.1-25). International Conference of Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Management (ICHCSM 2024).
Zhou, H., Liu, L., Lan, M., Zhu, W., Song, G., Jing, F., Zhong, Y., Su, Z. & Gu , X. (2021). Using google street view imagery to capture micro built environment characteristics in Drug Places, Compared With Street Robbery. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst., 88, 101631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2021.101631.
Zulestari, A., Hasriyanti, N. & Ruslan, I. (2018). Design guidelines for urban aesthetic to strengthen visual quality at town corridor in Pontianak city center (pp. 39-48). Built Environment, Science and Technology International Conference.Retrieved from https://www.scitepress.org/Papers/2018/89050/89050.pdf.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Türkçe

Konular

Kentsel Estetik, Kentsel Tasarım

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Meltem Coşaner Tonyalı
0009-0008-4025-9988
Türkiye

Tuğba Kiper ^*
0000-0003-3396-5661
Türkiye

Erken Görünüm Tarihi

3 Ekim 2024

Yayımlanma Tarihi

31 Aralık 2024

Gönderilme Tarihi

24 Mayıs 2024

Kabul Tarihi

25 Haziran 2024

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2024 Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.34186/klujes.1489408

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA85LT25WT

Kaynak Göster

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Coşaner Tonyalı, M., & Kiper, T. (2024). Kamusal Alanların Mekânsal Kalite Parametreleri Temelinde Görsel Peyzaj Değerinin Belirlenmesi: İstanbul/ Maltepe Örneği. Kirklareli University Journal of Engineering and Science, 10(2), 142-159. https://doi.org/10.34186/klujes.1489408

AMA

1.Coşaner Tonyalı M, Kiper T. Kamusal Alanların Mekânsal Kalite Parametreleri Temelinde Görsel Peyzaj Değerinin Belirlenmesi: İstanbul/ Maltepe Örneği. KLUJES. 2024;10(2):142-159. doi:10.34186/klujes.1489408

Chicago

Coşaner Tonyalı, Meltem, ve Tuğba Kiper. 2024. “Kamusal Alanların Mekânsal Kalite Parametreleri Temelinde Görsel Peyzaj Değerinin Belirlenmesi: İstanbul/ Maltepe Örneği”. Kirklareli University Journal of Engineering and Science 10 (2): 142-59. https://doi.org/10.34186/klujes.1489408.

EndNote

Coşaner Tonyalı M, Kiper T (01 Aralık 2024) Kamusal Alanların Mekânsal Kalite Parametreleri Temelinde Görsel Peyzaj Değerinin Belirlenmesi: İstanbul/ Maltepe Örneği. Kirklareli University Journal of Engineering and Science 10 2 142–159.

IEEE

[1]M. Coşaner Tonyalı ve T. Kiper, “Kamusal Alanların Mekânsal Kalite Parametreleri Temelinde Görsel Peyzaj Değerinin Belirlenmesi: İstanbul/ Maltepe Örneği”, KLUJES, c. 10, sy 2, ss. 142–159, Ara. 2024, doi: 10.34186/klujes.1489408.

ISNAD

Coşaner Tonyalı, Meltem - Kiper, Tuğba. “Kamusal Alanların Mekânsal Kalite Parametreleri Temelinde Görsel Peyzaj Değerinin Belirlenmesi: İstanbul/ Maltepe Örneği”. Kirklareli University Journal of Engineering and Science 10/2 (01 Aralık 2024): 142-159. https://doi.org/10.34186/klujes.1489408.

JAMA

1.Coşaner Tonyalı M, Kiper T. Kamusal Alanların Mekânsal Kalite Parametreleri Temelinde Görsel Peyzaj Değerinin Belirlenmesi: İstanbul/ Maltepe Örneği. KLUJES. 2024;10:142–159.

MLA

Coşaner Tonyalı, Meltem, ve Tuğba Kiper. “Kamusal Alanların Mekânsal Kalite Parametreleri Temelinde Görsel Peyzaj Değerinin Belirlenmesi: İstanbul/ Maltepe Örneği”. Kirklareli University Journal of Engineering and Science, c. 10, sy 2, Aralık 2024, ss. 142-59, doi:10.34186/klujes.1489408.

Vancouver

1.Meltem Coşaner Tonyalı, Tuğba Kiper. Kamusal Alanların Mekânsal Kalite Parametreleri Temelinde Görsel Peyzaj Değerinin Belirlenmesi: İstanbul/ Maltepe Örneği. KLUJES. 01 Aralık 2024;10(2):142-59. doi:10.34186/klujes.1489408