VAN GÖLÜ KIYISAL PEYZAJLARININ GÖRSEL KALİTE DEĞERLENDİRMESİ: KULLANICI ALGISI YAKLAŞIMI

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 134 - 144, 31.12.2025

Hande Özvan , Pınar Bostan

https://doi.org/10.56629/paud.1824581

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Van Gölü’nün doğu kıyısındaki sekiz seçilmiş kıyı alanında kullanıcıların görsel kalite algıları fotografik yöntemlerle değerlendirilmiştir. Her alandan üç fotoğraf çekilmiş ve 111 yerel kullanıcı dâhil 400 katılımcı, görüntüleri 5 puanlı Likert ölçeğiyle beğeni ve tercih açısından değerlendirmiştir. Ağırlıklı ortalama puanlar, en yüksek ve en düşük değerlendirilen alanları belirlemek ve görsel değerlendirmeler ile alan özellikleri arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek amacıyla analiz edilmiştir. Genel kullanıcılar Ayanıs Plajı’nı (20. görüntü) en yüksek puanlarla değerlendirirken, yerel kullanıcılar Mollakasım Plajı’nı (18. görüntü) beğeni, Edremit Marina’yı (1. görüntü) ise tercih açısından öne çıkarmıştır. Her iki grup da Yaşar Kemal Parkı (7. görüntü) ve 15 Temmuz Şehitler Parkı’nı (11. görüntü) bakımsız ve zayıf kompozisyonlu alanlar olarak en düşük puanlarla değerlendirmiştir. Bulgular, görsel kalite algısının estetik ve deneyimsel faktörlerin birlikte etkisiyle şekillendiğini ve bu boyutların kıyı alanlarının planlama ve yönetiminde bütüncül olarak ele alınması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Deneyimsel aşinalık , Kıyı rekreasyon alanları , Algısal peyzaj , Kullanıcı beğeni ve tercihi , Görsel kalite değerlendirmesi

Destekleyen Kurum

Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi

Proje Numarası

FYL-2018-7067

Teşekkür

Bu çalışma, Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi tarafından sağlanan “Van Gölü Doğu Kıyı Alanlarının Görsel Peyzaj Kalitesi Açısından Değerlendirilmesi (FYL-2018-7067 numaralı)” başlıklı proje tarafından desteklenmiştir. Katkılarından dolayı teşekkür ederiz.

VISUAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF LAKE VAN COASTAL LANDSCAPES: A USER PERCEPTION APPROACH

Öz

This study investigated user perceptions of visual quality at eight selected coastal sites along the eastern shore of Lake Van using photographic surveys. Three photographs (right, left, and panoramic views) were taken at each site, and 400 participants, including 111 local residents, evaluated the images using a 5-point Likert scale for appreciation and preference. Weighted mean scores were analysed to identify the highest and lowest rated images and to examine the relationship between visual evaluations and site characteristics. Among general users, Ayanıs Beach (20th image) received the highest appreciation and preference scores, attributed to its tranquil composition, expansive lake views, and isolated shoreline. Local users rated Mollakasım Beach (18th image) highest in appreciation and Edremit Marina (1st image) highest in preference, highlighting the influence of familiarity and accessibility. Both groups assigned the lowest scores to Yaşar Kemal Park (7th image) and 15 July Martyrs Park (11th image), which were perceived as poorly maintained and compositionally weak. The findings reveal that the perception of visual quality is shaped by the combined effect of aesthetic and experiential factors, and that these dimensions should be considered holistically in the planning and management of coastal areas.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Experiential familiarity , Coastal recreational areas , Landscape perception , User appreciation and preference , Visual quality assessment

Destekleyen Kurum

Van Yüzüncü Yıl University

Proje Numarası

FYL-2018-7067

Teşekkür

This study was supported by the project titled “Evaluation of the Eastern Coastal Areas of Lake Van in Terms of Visual Landscape Quality (numbered FYL-2018-7067)” provided by Van Yüzüncü Yıl University. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by Van Yüzüncü Yıl University.

Kaynakça

• Ak, M.K. and Yılmaz, O. (2016). The visual quality assessment of urban coastline landscapes: A case study of Akçakoca City, Turkey. BioDiCon, 9(2):180-187.
• Akköprü, E. and Christol, A. (2019). Lake Van. In: Kuzucuoğlu, C., Çiner, A., Kazancı, N. (eds) Landscapes and landforms of Turkey. World Geomorphological Landscapes. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03515-0_18.
• Albayrak, A.K. (2015). An evaluation of the concept of aesthetics. Academic Journal of Social Research, 10, 612-620.
• Appleton, J. (1980). Landscape in The arts and sciences. ınaugural lecture. University of Hull, Yorkshire.
• Ayhan, D. C. (2024). A contemporary look at the concept of aesthetics: The abandonment of aesthetics and the end of meta-narratives. Lokum Art and Design Magazine, 2(2), 130-141. e-ISSN: 2980-0722.
• Baumgarten, A. (1954). Reflections on Poetry. University of California Press, Berkeley.
• Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
• Cassatella, C. (2011). Assessing visual and social perceptions of landscape. In: Cassatella, C., Peano, A. (eds) Landscape Indicators. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0366-7_6.
• Clay, G. R. and Daniel, T. C. (2000). Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49: 1-13.
• Council of Europe. (2000). European Landscape Convention (ETS No. 176). Florence, Italy: Council of Europe. Cömert, B. (2008). Aesthetics. De Ki Printery, Ankara, ISBN: 978-9944-492-34-8.
• Daniel, T. C. and Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring Landscape Esthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Forest Service U.S, Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain.
• Daniel, C. T. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54: 267-281.
• Erdoğan, E. (2006). Environmental and Urban Aesthetics. ZKÜ Bartın Faculty of Forestry, 8(9):68-77.
• Ergen, M., Ergen, Y. B., Yaman, Y. K. and Şanlı, G. (2025). Analysis of fire risk distribution in Turkish urban areas, 2012–2022: A study using hot spot method and weighted overlay analysis. The Professional Geographer, 0(0):1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2025.2568517
• Erzen, J. (2010). Urban aesthetics (J. Erzen, Ed.). Ankara, Turkey: Chamber of Architects of Turkey, Ankara Branch, Publication No. 23. ISSN 1309-0704.
• Franěk, M. (2023).Landscape preference: The role of attractiveness and spatial openness of the environment. Behavioral Sciences 13(8):666. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13080666
• Garré, S. M. and Gulinck, H., 2009. The Dual Role of Roads in The Visual Landscape: A case study in the area around Mechelen (Belgium). Landscape and Urban Planning, 92: 125-135.
• Gültürk, P. (2013). Evaluation of Tekirdağ city center coastline in terms of visual landscape quality. (masters' thesis). Namık Kemal University Institute of Science, Tekirdağ.
• Herzog, T. R., Maguire, C. P., and Nebel, M. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 159–170.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00113-5.
• Jorgensen, B.S., Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of Place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3):233-248. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0226.
• Kao, Y., Wang, C. and Huang, K. (2015). Visual aesthetic quality assessment with a regression model. (27-30 September) IEEE, Quebec City, QC, Canada. https://dio.org/10.1109/ICIP.2015.7351067.
• Kao, Y., He, R. and Huang, K. (2017). Visual aesthetic quality assessment with Multi-task deep learning. 26(3): 1482-1495. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1604.04970.
• Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. And Ryan, R. L. (1998). With people in mind. Island Press, ABD. pp. 239.
• Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York.
• Kara, B. and Aşık, Y. (2018). Urban aesthetics: Kuşadası example. In book: Kuşadası landscape values (eds. Tanay Birişçi and Ayşe Kalaycı Önaç), TMMOB Chamber of Landscape Architects, pp.180-193.
• Kiper, T., Korkut, A. and Üstün Topal, T. (2017). Visual landscape quality assessment: Kıyıköy example. KSÜ Journal of Natural Sciences, 20(3): 258-269.
• Li, C., Ge, S., and Wang, R. (2022). Similarities and differences in the outsiders and ınsiders' visual preferences on sacred landscape. Front Psychol, 13:743933. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.743933.
• Lothian, A. (1999). Landscape and the Philosophy of Aesthetics: Is Landscape Quality Inherent in the Landscape or in The Eye of Beholder. Landscape and Urban Planning, 44: 177-198.
• Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkiye, (2003). Decision on the Ratification of the European Landscape Convention. Official Gazette (Sayı: 25181). Retrieved from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2003/07/20030727.htm#1.
• Özgeriş, M. and Karahan, F. (2015). A study on visual quality assessment in recreational facilities: Tortum and Uzundere (Erzurum) example. Artvin Coruh University,