Kentin Görsel Kodları: Büyükşehir Logolarında Peyzaj Özellikleri

Öz

Kentsel kimlik, bir mekânın tarihsel, kültürel, ekolojik ve sosyal katmanlarının bir araya gelerek oluşturduğu özgün ve dinamik karakterdir. Bu karakterin en yoğunlaştırılmış görsel yansıması ve kentsel markalaşmanın öncü aracı ise kent logolarıyla yansıtılmaktadır. Bu araştırmada, kentsel kimliğin görsel temsilinde doğal ve kültürel peyzaj öğelerinin kullanımı, Türkiye'deki 30 büyükşehir belediyesinin güncel kurumsal logoları üzerinden yapılandırılmış bir metodoloji ile incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın temel amacı, logolar üzerinden, kentsel kimlik oluşumunda doğal peyzaj öğeleri (dağ, su, bitki örtüsü, topografya) ile kültürel peyzaj öğelerinin (mimari yapılar, anıtlar, tarımsal ürünler, tarihi kalıntılar) kullanım sıklığını, dağılımını ve göstergebilimsel (semiyotik) anlamlarını detaylı bir şekilde analiz etmektir. Araştırmanın kavramsal çerçevesi, yerin ruhu (genius loci), mekânsal aidiyet ve kent imgesi kuramları üzerine oluşturulmuştur. Verilerin nicel formata dönüştürülmesi ve değerlendirilmesi sürecinde Görsel İçerik Analizi tekniği kullanılmış olup, elde edilen kategorik veriler frekans analizi, Cohen'in Kappa güvenilirlik katsayısı, Shannon-Wiener Çeşitlilik İndeksi ve Pearson Ki-Kare (Chi-Square) bağımsızlık testi gibi istatistiksel modellerle incelenmiştir. Literatür bulguları ve istatistiksel modellemeler, kıyı kentlerinin doğal peyzaj (özellikle su ve deniz) öğelerine, İç Anadolu ve tarihi derinliği yüksek kentlerin ise kültürel ve mimari peyzaj öğelerine ağırlık verdiğini açıkça göstermektedir. Bu çalışmada, kent markalaşması ve peyzaj tasarımı kesişiminde, kentlerin görünmez kültürel miraslarını ve doğal zenginliklerini nasıl görsel bir kentsel belleğe dönüştürdükleri ortaya konulmuş, küreselleşmenin getirdiği yersizleşme tehdidine karşı yerel kentsel peyzaj unsurlarının korunmasının önemi vurgulanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kentsel kimlik
• kent logoları
• görsel içerik analizi
• doğal ve kültürel peyzaj
• göstergebilim

Visual Codes of the City: Landscape Features in Metropolitan Logos

Öz

Urban identity is the unique and dynamic character formed by the coming together of the historical, cultural, ecological and social layers of a place. The most concentrated visual reflection of this character and the pioneering tool of urban branding are reflected through city logos. In this research, the use of natural and cultural landscape elements in the visual representation of urban identity was examined with a structured methodology based on the current corporate logos of 30 metropolitan municipalities in Türkiye. The main purpose of the study is to analyze in detail the frequency of use, distribution and semiotic meanings of natural landscape elements (mountain, water, vegetation, topography) and cultural landscape elements (architectural structures, monuments, agricultural products, historical ruins) in the formation of urban identity through these logos. The Visual Content Analysis technique was used in the process of converting the data into a quantitative format and evaluating it and the obtained categorical data were examined with statistical models such as frequency analysis, Cohen's Kappa reliability coefficient, the Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index and the Pearson Chi-Square test of independence. Statistical modelings clearly show that coastal cities emphasize natural landscape (especially water and sea) elements, while cities with high historical depth emphasize cultural and architectural landscape elements. This study reveals how cities transform their invisible cultural heritage and natural resources into a visual urban memory and emphasizes the importance of preserving local urban landscape elements.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Urban ıdentity
• city logos
• visual content analysis
• natural and cultural landscape
• semiotics

Kaynakça

1. Acuti, D., Mazzoli, V., Donvito, R., & Chan, P. (2018). An instagram content analysis for city branding in London and Florence. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 9(3), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2018.1463859
2. Adamus-Matuszynska, A. & Dzik, P. (2024). Impermanence of the Visual Identity of Polish Local and Regional Governments. Economics and Culture, 21(2), 34-43. https://doi.org/10.2478/jec-2024-0017
3. Ahmad Patria, A. H., Mohd. Hussain, M. R., & Tukiman, I. (2024). Cultural Imageability on Urban Identity: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), 8(16), 57-67. https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.816SCO004
4. Aliağaoğlu, A. (2011). Lakap ve logolarda Türkiye şehirleri: Anlamların coğrafyası. Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi, 12(17), 263–290. https://izlik.org/JA93ZK72AR
5. Aliağaoğlu, A., & Çetinkaya, S. (2021). Türkiye'de değişen belediye logoları: Küreselleşme ve başka nedenler. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 25 (Özel Sayı), 44–64. https://doi.org/10.53487/ataunisosbil.875426
6. Aliağaoğlu, A., & Uğur, A. (2018). Logolarda Erzurum kent kimliği: Yorumlayıcı anlamaya yönelik bir çalışma. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(4), 2357-2379. https://izlik.org/JA89NJ23PP
7. Amoruso, G., & Manti, A. (2016). A BIM for the identity of historic urban landscapes. lntegrated aplica­tions of survey for the Certosa di Bologna architectural fieritage. Disegnarecon, 9(16).
8. Ashworth, G., & Kavaratzis, M. (2009). Beyond the logo: Brand management for cities. Journal of Brand Management, 16, 520-531. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550133

9. Aşur, F., & Yılmaz, M. P. (2024). Evaluation of The Effects of Historical Urban Landscapes on Van City Identity. UXUC - User Experience and Urban Creativity, 6(2), 52–65.
10. De Smedt, J., & De Cruz, H. (2010). Toward an Integrative Approach of Cognitive Neuroscientific and Evolutionary Psychological Studies of Art. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(4), 695-719. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491000800411
11. Eshuis, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2012). Branding in Governance and Public Management. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203145159
12. Gospodini, A. (2004). Urban morphology and place identity in European cities: Built heritage and innovative design. Journal of Urban Design, 9(2), 225-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357480042000227834
13. Gültürk, P. & Şişman, E. E. (2015). Tekirdağ Kent Merkezi Kıyı Şeridinin Görsel Peyzaj Kalitesi Yönünden Değerlendirilmesi ve Mekan Tercihine Etkisi. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(1), 81-89. https://izlik.org/JA77FA73LF
14. Henderson, P. W., & Cote, J. A. (1998). Guidelines for selecting or modifying logos. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 14-30.
15. Hu, W., & Yang, Z. (2025). Public art and urban identity: enhancing cultural landscapes. GeoJournal, 90, 190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-025-11436-z
16. Jencks, C. (1977). The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. Rizzoli.
17. Kavaratzis, M., & Hatch, M. J. (2013). The dynamics of place brands: An identity-based approach to place branding theory. Marketing Theory, 13(1), 69-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593112467268
18. Kaymaz, I. (2013). Urban Landscapes and Identity. Advances in Landscape Architecture. (Ed. Özyavuz, M.), IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/55754
19. Knez, I. (2005). Attachment and identity as related to a place and its perceived climate. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(2), 207-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.03.003
20. Lalli, M. (1992). Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement and empirical findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(4), 285-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80078-7
21. Liu, Q., Wu, Y., Xiao, Y., Fu, W., Zhuo, Z., van den Bosch, C. C. K., Huang, Q & Lan, S. (2020). More meaningful, more restorative? Linking local landscape characteristics and place attachment to restorative perceptions of urban park visitors. Landscape and Urban Planning, 197, 103763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103763
22. Lucarelli A. & Berg P.O. (2011). City branding: a state‐of‐the‐art review of the research domain. Journal of Place Management and Development, 4(1), 9–27,
23. Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. MIT Press.
24. Muratovski, G. (2012). The Role of Architecture and Integrated Design in City Branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 8, 195-207. https://doi.org/10.1057/pb.2012.12
25. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802878
26. Nora, P. (1989). Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire. Representations, (26), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.2307/2928520
27. Oktay, D., & Bala, H. A. (2015). A holistic research approach to measuring urban identity: Findings from Girne (Kyrenia) area study. International Journal of Architectural Research Archnet-IJAR, 9(2), 201-215.
28. Parry, K (2020) Quantitative Content Analysis of the Visual. In: Pauwels, L and Mannay, D, (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods. SAGE, pp. 352-266. ISBN: 9781473978003. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526417015
29. Rapoport, A. (1992). On cultural landscapes. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review, 3(2), 33-47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41757142
30. Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness. Pion.
31. Swanwick, C. (2002). Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland. The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, 104 p.
32. Tweed, C., & Sutherland, M. (2007). Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 62-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.008
33. Ujang, N. (2012). Place attachment and continuity of urban place identity. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 156-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.07.014
34. UNESCO. (2011). Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. https://whc.unesco.org/en/hul/
35. Uzun, S., & Özcan, H. (2014). Belediye logolarındaki coğrafi sembollerin analizi: Kocaeli örneği. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(32), 272-288.
36. Uzunali, A., & Yigit Uzunali, S. (2025). Place, Emotion and Data: Perceptual Sustainability in Smart Cities. In E. Düzgüneş, S. S. Kurt Konakoğlu, & M. Akten (Eds.), Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Smart Cities (pp. 442-465). Iksad Publications. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17311500
37. Venturi, R., Scott Brown, D., & Izenour, S. (1977). Learning from Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form. MIT Press.
38. Vesalon, L., & Cretan, R. (2019). “Little Vienna” or “European avant-garde” city?: Branding narratives in a Romanian city. Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis, 11(1), 19-34.
39. Wahyurini, O. (2012). The Significance of City Logo in City Branding Strategy. Recent Researches in Engineering Mechanics, Urban & Naval Transportation and Tourism, 79-84.