HASKÖY BEYOĞLU SOKAKLARINDA ALGILANAN OKUNABİLİRLİK VE AŞİNALIK HİSSİ ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN ARAŞTIRILMASI

Öz

Algı kişisel bir deneyimdir ve genellikle cinsiyet, yaş, eğitim düzeyi ve ayrıca sahne görüntüyle ilgili olduğu sürece deneyim ve çevresel faktörlerden etkilenir. Aşinalık kavramı, bazı kentsel tasarımcılar tarafından okunabilirlik ile ilgili olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Kişinin deneyimi ve mekânı kullanma sıklığı, mekânın okunabilir kimliği, kişinin bulunduğu yerde kendini güvende hissetmesine yardımcı olur. Bu durum aynı zamanda mekan algısını ve tercihlerini olumlu yönde etkileyerek kişinin mekanı tanımasını ve yön bulmasını kolaylaştırır. Bu çalışmada, inşaat mühendisliği birinci ve üçüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin okunabilirlik ve aşinalık kavramları, bir mekanı nasıl yorumladıkları, algıladıkları ve mekan algısında ortaya çıkabilecek farklılıklar açısından incelenmiştir. Birinci sınıf öğrencisi 46, üçüncü sınıf öğrencisi 46 kişi ile çalışma yapılmıştır. Çalışma alanı Beyoğlu, Hasköy Mahallesi olarak belirlenmiştir. Çalışmada Hasköy sınırları içerisinde seçilen 4 farklı sokak dokusundan elde edilen 6 farklı sokak imgesi ve anlamsal farklılaştırma ölçeği kullanılarak öğrencilere anket uygulanmıştır. Anketlerin değerlendirilmesinde frekans analizi, bağımsız örnekleme t-testi ve korelasyon analizi kullanılmıştır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda inşaat mühendisliği birinci ve üçüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin sokağı algılama biçimlerinde anlamlı bir fark olduğu görülmüştür. Korelasyon analizi sonucunda okunabilirlik ile aşinalık arasında yüksek bir korelasyon olduğu görülmektedir. Üçüncü sınıf öğrencileri, birinci sınıf öğrencilerine göre mekanı daha okunabilir olarak algılamış ancak bu farkın oluşmasında aşinalığın da etkisi bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sokak
• Görsel Algılama
• Okunabilirlik
• Aşinalık
• Hasköy

EXAMINING THE INTERACTION OF PERCEIVED LEGIBILITY AND SENSE OF FAMILIARITY IN THE STREETS OF HASKÖY, BEYOĞLU

Öz

Perception is a personal experience and is often influenced by the gender, age, educational attainment as well as the experience and environmental factors they experience, as far as the scene is concerned with the image. Familiarity concept is considered related to legibility by some urban designers. The experience of the person and the frequency of use of the space, the legible identity of the space helps people to feel safe in the place where they are. This situation also affects positively the sense of space and its preferences, making it easier for the person to recognize the space and find direction. In this study, the concepts of legibility and familiarity of the first and third graders of civil engineering were explored in terms of how they interpreted and perceived a space and the differences that may arise in perception of space. Work has been done with 46 people were first-year students, 46 students were third-year students. The study area was determined as Beyoğlu, Hasköy District. In the study, questionnaires were applied to the students using 6 different street images and semantic differentiation scales obtained from 4 different street textures selected within the boundaries of Hasköy. In the evaluation of the questionnaires, frequency analysis, independent sampling t-test and correlation analysis were used. As a result of the analyses, it was seen that there was a significant difference in the way that civil engineering first and third graders perceived the streets. It is seen that there is a high correlation between legibility and familiarity as a result of correlation analysis. Third-year students perceived the place to be more legible than first-year students, but the influence of familiarity was also found in the formation of this difference.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Street
• Visual Perception
• Legibility
• Familiarity
• Hasköy

Kaynakça

1. Acredolo, L. P., Pick, H. L., & Olsen, M. G. (1975). Environmental differentiation and familiarity as determinants of children's memory for spatial location. Developmental Psychology, 11(4), 495–501.
2. Acredolo, L. P. (1982). The familiarity factor in spatial research. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1982(15), 19-30.
3. Akagi, T., & Adachi, K. (2015). Improving environmental safety and legibility for the elderly with dementia. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 32(3), 181–198.
4. Au, A., Chan, S. C. Y., Yip, H., Kwok, J., Lai, K., Leung, K., Lee, A., Lai, D., Tsien, T., & Lai, M. K. (2017). Age-friendliness and life satisfaction of young-old and old-old in Hong Kong. Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research, 2017, 1-10.
5. Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental psychology. Psychology Press.
6. Beyoğlu Municipality. (2018). Hasköy. http://www.beyoglu.bel.tr/
7. Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdall, S. (2006). Public places-urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design. Architectural Press.
8. Chebat, J. C., Gélinas-Chebat, C., & Therrien, K. (2005). Lost in a mall, the effects of gender, familiarity with the shopping mall and the shopping values on shoppers’ wayfinding processes. J. Bus. Res., 2005(58), 1590-1598.

9. Comelli, T, Anguelovski, I., & Chu, E. (2018). Socio-spatial legibility, discipline, and gentrification through favela upgrading in Rio de Janeiro. City, 22(5-6), 633-656.
10. Cüceloğlu, D. (2006). İnsan ve davranışı. Remzi Kitabevi.
11. Cağlayan, S., Korkmaz, M., & Öktem, G. (2014). Evaluation of visual perception in art in terms of literature. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 3(1), 160-173.
12. Erbilen, S. U. (2012). An example for urban space perception: Famagusta (İsmet İnönü Boulevard). H. U. Journal of Education, Special Issue 1, 157-166.
13. Erdönmez, E. (2014). Kamusal alan ve toplum. Esenler Belediyesi Şehir Düşünce Merkezi Şehir Yayınları.
14. Eristi, S. D., Uluuysal, M. D., & Dindar, M. (2013). Designing an interactive learning environment based on theories of visual perception and students’ views about the software. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 3(1), 47-66.
15. Gärling, T., Lindberg, E., & Mäntylä, T. (1983). Orientation in buildings: Effects of familiarity, visual access, and orientation aids. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(1), 177-186.
16. Ghomeshi, M., & Jusan, M. M. (2013). Investigating different aesthetic preferences between architects and non-architects in residential façade designs. Indoor and Built Environment, 22(6), 952-964.
17. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Doubleday.
18. Herzog, T. R., & Leverich, O. L. (2003). Searching for legibility. Environment and Behavior, 35(4), 459-477.
19. Kim, J. Y., Choi, J. K., Han, W. H, & Kim, J. H. (2021). The influence of users' spatial familiarity on their emotional perception of space and wayfinding movement patterns. Sensors (Basel), 21(8), 2583.
20. Kirasic, K. C. (1989). The effects of age and environmental familiarity on adults' spatial problem-solving performance: Evidence of a hometown advantage. Experimental Aging Research, 15(4), 181-187.
21. Köseoğlu, E., & Önder, D. E. (2011). Subjective and objective dimensions of spatial legibility. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1191-119.
22. Kürkçüoğlu, E., & Ocakçı, M. (2015). A perceptual behavior study on spatial orientation in urban fabric: Kadıköy bazaar district. Megaron, 10(3), 365-388.
23. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. The MIT Press.
24. Moghimi nia, B. (2017). Urban legibility, analyzing urban elements. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 6(1), 146-162.
25. Nasar, L. J. (1989). Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behavior, 21(3), 235-257.
26. O'Neill, M. J. (1992) Effects of familiarity and plan complexity on wayfinding in simulated buildings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(4), 319-327.
27. Osgood, C, E., Suci, G, J., & Tannenbaum, P, H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. The University of Illinois Press.
28. Özcan, Z., Bayraktar, N., Görer, N., & Tekel, A. (2003). An analytical solution on the city: Streets first year planning studio experiment. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 18(2), 17-30.
29. Passini R. (1984). Spatial representations, a wayfinding perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4(2), 153-164.
30. Piccardi, L., Risetti, M., & Nori, R. (2011). Familiarity and environmental representations of a city: A self-report study. Psychological Reports, 109(1), 309–326.
31. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. Pion Limited.
32. Rowles, G. D. (1983). Place and personal identity in old age: Observations from Appalachia. J. Environ. Psychol., 3, 299-313.
33. Sohrabi, M. (2015). Analysis of the place of outdoor architecture in the legibility of spaces. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 3(3), 44-54.
34. Stedman, R. C. (2006). Understanding place attachment among second home owners. Am. Behav. Sci., 50, 1-19.
35. Thomas, D. (2016). Placemaking: An urban design methodology. Routledge.
36. Todorova, A., Asakawa, S., & Aikoh, T. (2004). Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(4), 403-416.
37. Topçu, M., Çevrimli, B. A., & Geyikli, H. B. (2021). Syntactic legibility of image elements: Eskişehir case. Megaron, 16(4), 644-658.
38. Tuan, Y. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. Prentice Hall.
39. Wan Mohamad, W. S. N., & Said, I. (2018). Familiarity factors of street features in pedestrian wayfindings. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 5(3), 201-207.