Investigation of heritage plants representing urban identity and the change in the urbanization process

Öz

Historical textures of the cities are unique spaces exhibiting hundreds of years of urban identity and cultural heritage with all their components such as buildings, outdoors and plant materials. Therefore, historical animate materials are as crucial as historical inanimate ones to sustain urban identity. This study aims to reveal the heritage plants representing the urban identity and their temporal change in urbanization as an example of Kahramanmaraş's historical urban texture. The study was carried out in three stages: a) Identifying and mapping traditional public and civil architectures and carrying out spatial investigations on these samples, b) Creating a heritage plants album describing their use, purpose, and composition by identifying the sample areas, c) Determining the temporal changes in the use of the plants representing the urban identity through user researches. According to the findings obtained in the study, Olea europaea L. (81.9%) is the most representative plant in the city among the 29 heritage plants examined. In addition, 32 new exotic species have recently been frequently used in the city's green spaces instead of valuable heritage plants representing the city. Compared to the past, while there was no significant change in the purpose of creating a shaded and cool resting place in terms of intended use, the purpose of enhancing the visual quality of the courtyard/garden increased by 15.32% and obtaining products decreased by 29.8%.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Heritage Trees
• Native Species
• Urban Identity
• Cultural Sustainability
• Historical Urban Area

Kent kimliğini temsil eden miras bitkiler ve bunların kentleşme sürecindeki değişimin incelenmesi

Öz

Kentlerin tarihi dokuları; binaları, dış mekânları ve bitki materyalleri gibi tüm bileşenleri ile yüzlerce yıllık kentsel kimlik ve kültürel mirası sergileyen eşsiz mekânlardır. Bu nedenle, kentsel kimliğin sürdürülmesinde tarihi cansız materyaller kadar tarihi canlı materyaller de önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışma, kent kimliğini temsil eden miras bitkilerin kentleşme süreci içerisindeki zamansal değişimini Kahramanmaraş'ın tarihi kent dokusu örneğinde ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma üç aşamada gerçekleştirilmiştir: a) Geleneksel kamu ve sivil mimarilerin belirlenmesi, haritalanması ve bu örnekler üzerinde mekânsal incelemelerin yapılması, b) Örnek alanlardaki bitkilerin belirlenmesi ve bunların kullanım ve amaçlarının anlatıldığı bir miras bitki albümü oluşturulması, c) Kent kimliğini temsil eden bitkilerin kullanımlarındaki zamansal değişimlerin kullanıcı araştırmaları ile belirlenmesi. Araştırmada elde edilen bulgulara göre Olea europaea L. (%81,9) incelenen 29 miras bitki arasında kenti en çok temsil eden bitkidir. Ayrıca 32 yeni egzotik türün, kenti temsil eden değerli miras bitkilerin yerine kentin yeşil alanlarında son zamanlarda sıklıkla kullanılmaya başlandığı gözlenmiştir. Bitkilerin kullanım amaçlarında geçmişe göre gölgeli ve serin bir dinlenme mekânı oluşturma amacında önemli bir değişiklik olmazken, avlu/bahçenin görsel kalitesini artırma amacı %15,32 artmış olup ürün elde etme amacı ise %29,8 azalmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Miras bitkiler
• Yerli türler
• Kent kimliği
• Kültürel sürdürülebilirlik
• Tarihi kentsel alan

Kaynakça

1. Abacıoğlu Gitmiş, E., 2021. Bitki materyali ile kent kimliği arasındaki ilişkinin kentleşme süreci kapsamında incelenmesi: Kahramanmaraş tarihî kent dokusu örneği. Doctoral dissertation, Çukurova University Institute of Science, Adana.
2. Alexander, C., 1977. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN-13 978-0-19-501919-3.
3. Alexander, C., Neis, H., Anninou, A., King, I.F., 1987. A New Theory of Urban Design (Vol. 6). Oxford University Press, New York. ISBN-13: 978-0195037531.
4. Anderson, L.M., Schroeder, H.W., 1983. Application of wildland scenic assessment methods to the urban landscape. Landscape Planning, 10(3): 219-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(83)90049-7.
5. Antrop, M., 2005. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70(2005): 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002.
6. Austin, M.E., 2002. Partnership opportunities in neighborhood tree planting initiatives: Building from local knowledge. Journal of Arboriculture, 28(4): 178-186.
7. Bajec, J.F., 2016. Cultural heritage and the role of voluntary associations in the process of achieving sustainable development in rural communities. Studia ethnologica Croatia, 28: 21–45. https://doi.org/10.17234/SEC.28.2.
8. Beck, U., Lash, S., Wynne, B., 1992. Risk society: Towards a New Modernity (Vol. 17). London, UK: Sage Publications. ISBN-13: 978-0803983465.

9. Birol, G., 2007. Bir kentin kimliği ve kervansaray oteli üzerine bir değerlendirme. Arkitekt Dergisi, 514(1): 46-54.
10. Bookchin, M., 1992. Urbanization Without Cities: The Rise and Decline of Citizenship (Vol. 171). Black Rose Books Limited. ISBN-13: 978-1895431001.
11. Boussaa, D., 2018. Urban regeneration and the search for ıdentity in historic cities. Sustainability, 10(1): 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010048.
12. Bozhüyük, Z.R., 2007. Visual impact assessment of some historical buildings and environments in Erzurum city centre. Master's Thesis, Atatürk University Institute of Science, Erzurum.
13. Buhyoff, G.J., Gauthier, L.J., Wellman, J.D., 1984. Predicting scenic quality for urban forests using vegetation measurements. Forest Science, 30(1): 71-82. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/30.1.71
14. Carrà, N., 2014. Identity and urban values for sustainable design. In Advanced Engineering Forum, Vol. 11, pp. 470-475.
15. Carrion, F., 2005. The historical centre as an object of desire. City & Time, 1(3).
16. Carta, M., 1999. L'armatura Culturale Del Territorio: Il Patrimonio Culturale Come Matrice Di Identità E Strumento Di Sviluppo (Vol. 51). FrancoAngeli. ISBN-13:978-8846411402.
17. Creswell, J.W., 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approach 4th ed., Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, California, USA. ISBN: 9781452274614.
18. Çelik, D., Yazgan, M.E., 2007. According to urban landscape design, the determination of legislation and regulation for conservation of historical environment. Journal of Bartın Faculty of Forestry, 9(11): 1-10.
19. Doratlı, N., Önal, S., 2000. Tarihi çevrelerde kentsel tasarım stratejileri: Lefkoşe Arab Ahmet Bölgesi canlandırma projesinin stratejik yaklaşımlar açısından değerlendirilmesi. Mimar Sinan University, 1, 167.
20. Doygun, H., Ok, T., 2006. Evaluating urban afforestation studies in open-green spaces of Kahramanmaraş city, and suggestions. KSU Journal of Science and Engineering, 9(2): 94-103.
21. Doygun, H., 2009. Effects of urban sprawl on agricultural land: A case study of Kahramanmaraş, Turkey. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 158(1): 471-478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0597-7.
22. Erduran Nemutlu F., Çelik, A., Sağlık A., Devecioğlu N.E., 2013. The Use of Out-Door Ornamental Plants in the Historical Urban. Conference paper at 5th Ornamental Plants Congress, Yalova, Turkey.
23. Ferris, J., Norman, C., Sempik, J., 2001. People, land and sustainability: Community gardens and the social dimension of sustainable development. Social Policy & Administration, 35(5): 559-568. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9515.t01-1-00253.
24. Flannigan, J., 2005. An evaluatıon of resıdents'attıtudes to street trees in Southwest England. Arboricultural Journal, 28(4): 219-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2005.9747428
25. Gökhan, İ., Kaya, S., 2008. İlkçağdan Dulkadirlilere Kadar Maraş (Vol. 23). Ukde Kitaplığı.
26. Heikkinen, H.I., Lakomäki, S., Baldridge, J., 2007. The dimensions of sustainability and the neo-entrepreneurial adaptation strategies in reindeer herding in Finland. Journal of Ecological Anthropology, 11(1): 25-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/2162-4593.11.1.2.
27. Karadayı, G., 2000. Continuity or urban ıdentity and visual ımpact assesment: Trabzon. Master Thesis, Karadeniz Teknik University, Trabzon.
28. Karaşah, B., Sarı, D., 2018. An effective component in the urban identıty: Native plants. International Social Sciences Studies Journal, 4(26): 5539-5545. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.26449/sssj.965.
29. Keykubat, B., 2014. Ölümsüz Ağaç Zeytin: Kutsal Tören (Derleme). Ağustos 2018 tarihinde Apelasyon, 9. Retrieved from http://apelasyon.com/Yazi/97-olumsuz-agac-zeytin-kutsal-toren-derleme. Accessed October 19, 2021.
30. Koçan, N., 2011. A research on the Mudurnu (Bolu) urban sites. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty, 11(1): 44-51. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kastorman/ issue/17236/180071.
31. Krier, R. (1988). Urban space. New York: Rizzoli. ISBN-10: 0847802361.
32. Lawrence, H.W., 2008. City Trees: A Historical Geography from the Renaissance through the Nineteenth Century. University of Virginia Press. ISBN-10: 0813928001.
33. Loures, L., Santos, R., Panagopoulos, T., 2007. Urban parks and sustainable city planning: The case of Portimao, Portugal. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development, 3(10): 171–180.
34. Lowenthal, D., Olwig, K., 2006. The Nature of Cultural Heritage and the Culture of Natural Heritage: Northern Perspectives on a Contested Patrimony. Routledge. ISBN: 9781138976825.
35. Lynch, K., 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. ISBN: 9780262120043.
36. Merdoğlu Bilaloğlu, G.A., 2004. Identification of Turkish garden identity of historical houses in the city of Kahramanmaraş. Doctoral dissertation, Ankara University Institute of Science, Ankara.
37. Ocakçı, M., 1994. Şehrin Kimliği ve Çevre İlişkileri, Kent ve Çevre Planlamaya Ekolojik Yaklaşım. World Urbanism Day Colloquium Book, 163-170.
38. Önem, B., Kılınçaslan, İ., 2005. Haliç Bölgesinde çevre algılama ve kentsel kimlik. İTÜ Dergisi/a Mimarlık, Planlama ve Tasarım, 4(1): 115-125. http://itudergi.itu.edu.tr/index.php/itudergisi_a/search/advancedResults. Accessed: 8.10.2021.
39. Özçelik, H., 2019. Sembol bitkilerimiz ve özellikleri. Plant Peyzaj ve Süs Bitkiciliği Dergisi. https://www.plantdergisi.com/prof-dr-hasan-ozcelik/sembol-bitkilerimiz-ve-ozellikleri.html. Accessed: 22.10.2021.
40. Pulido, A., 1972. Estadistica y Tecnicas de Investigacion Social. Ediciones Anaya, Madrid, Spain.
41. Rapoport, A., 1984. Culture and Urban Order, in Agnew J.A. and et al. (eds), The City in Cultural Context, Allen & Unwin, Boston, pp.50-75.
42. Relph, E., 1976. Place and Placelessness. London, UK
43. Robinson, N., 2004. The Planting Design Handbook. Ashgate Publications, UK. ISBN-10: 1472415493.
44. Rossi, A., 1982. The Architecture of the City, Opposition Books. The MIT Press, London. ISBN-10: 0262680432.
45. Sachs, A., 1995. Eco-Justice: Linking Human Rights and the Environment. Worldwatch Institute, USA. ISBN-10: 1878071297.
46. Schroeder, H., Ruffolo, S., 1996. Householder evaluations of street trees in a Chicago suburb. Journal of Arboriculture, 22(1): 35-43.
47. Schroeder, H., 2012. Does Beauty Still Matter? Experiential and Utilitarian Values of Urban Trees. In: Johnston M, Percival G (eds) Trees, People, and the Built Environment II - Conference Proceedings, Institute of Chartered Foresters, pp.159-165.
48. Schulz, C.N., 1979. Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. Rizzoli Press. Italy, ISBN-10: 0847802876.
49. Shimada, L., Johnston, M., 2015. Planting 'post-conflict landscapes: urban trees in peacebuilding and reconstruction. In: Johnston M, Percival G (eds) Trees, People, and the Built Environment II - Conference Proceedings, Institute of Chartered Foresters.
50. Sommer, R., Guenther, H., Barker, P.A., 1990. Surveying householder response to street trees. Landscape Journal, 9(2): 79-85. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43324043. Accessed: 12.09.2021.
51. Ter, Ü., 2002. A Research on the urban design of the historical city center in the open and green spaces of the city of Konya. Doctoral dissertation, Ankara University Institute of Science, Ankara.
52. Ujang, N., 2012. Place attachment and continuity of urban place identity. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49(2012): 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.07.014.
53. Ulrich, R.S., Addoms, D.L., 1981. Psychological and recreational benefits of a residential park. Journal of Leisure Research, 13(1): 43-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1981.11969466.
54. Violich, F., 1995. Identity: Key to meaningful place-making, the case for berkeley. Prostor, 3(1995), 201-216. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/37994. Accessed: 21.09.2021.
55. Watson, G. B., Bentley, I., 2007. Identity by Design. Routledge. ISBN: 9780750647670.
56. Zhao, Z., Wang, Y., Hou, Y., 2020. Residents' spatial perceptions of urban gardens based on soundscape and landscape differences. Sustainability, 12(17): 6809. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176809.