Suyun mekanın sosyal boyutu üstüne yansımaları: Farklı su öğeleri ve ilişkili oldukları etkinlikler

Öz

Bu çalışmada farklı su öğelerinin insan psikolojisi üzerindeki etkileri ve bulundukları mekanlardaki insan etkinliklerini nasıl etkiledikleri belirlenmiştir. Bu görüş doğrultusunda insanların psikolojik ihtiyaçlarını (sosyal etkileşim, olumlu kimlik, psikolojik refah gibi) daha iyi karşılayan ve o çevre içinde yer alan insan etkinliklerini daha iyi destekleyen, daha etkin su öğelerinin tasarımında kullanılabilecek bazı ilkelerin üzerinde durulmuştur. Farklı su öğelerinin psikolojik etkileri (enerji, hareket, coşku, sakinlik, rahatlama gibi) ve mekansal etkinliklerle ilişkileri kamera görüntülerinin kullanıldığı görsel anket çalışmasıyla saptanmıştır. Hareketli ve durgun su öğelerinin psikolojik etkileri ve çevrelerindeki etkinliklerin gerçekleşmesi üzerinde oynadıkları rolü anlamak için anketten elde edilen veriler analiz edilmiştir. Farklı su öğelerinin insanlar üzerinde farklı psikolojik etkileri olduğu ve su öğelerinin etkisinin içinde bulunduğu mekanın etkinliklerine büyük oranda bağlı olduğu bulunmuştur. Bu sonuçlardan yola çıkarak su elemanlarının tasarımında etkin olabilecek bazı önemli tasarım ilkeleri sunulmuştur. Anahtar kelimeler: Su öğeleri, Psikolojik ihtiyaçlar, Su-Etkinlik İlişkisi

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Su öğeleri, Psikolojik ihtiyaçlar, Su-Etkinlik İlişkisi

Water Reflections on the Social Dimension of Place: Different Waterscapes and Related Activity Patterns

Öz

In this study, we determine the effects of different waterscapes on human psychology and how they influence the human activities in the surrounding environment. Based on this understanding, we underline some guiding principles to be used in designing more effective waterscapes, that better satisfy psychological necessities of people (such as social interaction, positive identity, spiritual prosperity) and better support the human activities taking place in the surrounding environment. Psychological effects of different waterscapes (such as energy boosting, exhilarating, tranquillizing, comforting) and their relationship with the activity context of the surrounding environment is investigated by means of visual questionnaires put together using video records. The resulting data from the questionnaires is analyzed to understand the roles played by still and active water components in characterizing the psychological effects of a waterscape and its influence on the surrounding activities. It is found out that different waterscapes have substantially different psychological effects on people and the effectiveness of a waterscape is highly dependent on the activity context of the surrounding environment. Capitalizing on these results, some important design principles that are deemed effective in designing waterscapes are presented. Keywords: Waterscapes, Psychological needs, Waterscape-Activity relationship

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Waterscapes, Psychological needs, Waterscape-Activity relationship

Kaynakça

1. Bachelard, G., 1983, Water and Dreams: An Essay on the Imagination of Matter. Dallas, Texas: Dallas Institute Publications.
2. Brown, T.C., Daniel, T.C., 1991, Landscape aesthetics of riparian environments: Relationships of flow quantity to scenic quality along a wild and scenic river. Water Resource Research, 27: 1787-1795.
3. Campbell, M. H., Moore, D. E., 2002, An informational approach to the assessment of preference for urban waterscapes. Technical Report, New College of Florida.
4. Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, I. G., Stone, A. M., 1992, Public space. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Carr, S., Lynch, K., 1981, Open space: Freedom and control. In: L. Taylor (Ed.), Urban open spaces. New York: Rizzoli International Publications.
6. Chanson, H., 1998, The formal water garden. Technical Report, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Queensland, Australia.
7. Crowhurst, S. H., Lennard H., 1987, Livable cities, people and places: Social and design principle for the future of the city. Southampton, NY: Gondolier Press.
8. Daniel, T. C., Ittelson, W. H., 1981, Conditions for environmental perception research: Comment on “The psychological environments” by Ward and Russell. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 110: 153-157. physical

9. Danielle, M., 1992, The meanings of water in urban parks: A comparison of adults and children. Master Thesis, Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Washington, Washington, USA.
10. Han, J., Kamber, M., 2000, Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
11. Heath, T. F., 1988, Behaviour and perceptual aspects of the aesthetics of urban environments. In: Nasar, J. L. (Ed.), Environmental Application. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Herzog, T. R., 1985, A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5: 225-241.
13. Herzog, T. R., Bosley P., J., 1992, Tranquility and preference as affective qualities of natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12: 115-127.
14. Hetherington, J., 1991., Representing the environment: Visual surrogates in environmental assessment. Healthy Environments, 22: 246-252.
15. Hetherington, J., Daniel T. C., Brown, T. C., 1993, Is motion more important than it sounds? The medium of presentation in environment perception research. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13 (4): 283-291.
16. Huang, S-C. L., 1998, A study of people’s perception of waterscapes in built environments. Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A&M University, Texas, USA.
17. Kaltenborn, B. P., Bjerke, T., 2002, Associations between environmental preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59 (1): 1- 11. and landscape
18. Kaplan, R., 1984, Impact of urban nature: A theoretical analysis. Urban Ecology, 8: 189-197.
19. Litton, B. R. Jr., 1984, Visual fluctuations in river landscape quality. In: Popadic, J. S., Buterfield, D. I., Anderson, D. H., & Popadic, M. R. (Eds.), Proceeding of the Symposium on National River Recreation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
20. Lynch, K., 1960, The İmage of the City. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
21. Nasar, J. L., 1987, Physical correlates of perceived quality in lakeshore development. Leisure Studies, 7: 259- 279.
22. Project for Public Spaces 1979, Seattle Federal Building Plaza: Events and improvements study. New York.
23. Purcell, A. T., 1987, Landscape perception, preference and schema discrepancy. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 14: 67-92.
24. Purcell, T., Thorne, R., 1976, Spaces for pedestrian use in the city of Sydney: A pilot study of city office and shop workers’ attitudes and requirements for open space to be used in their lunch break. Technical Report, Architectural Psychology Research Unit, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
25. Schroeder, H. W., 1987, Dimensions of variation in urban park preference: A psychophysical analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 7: 123-141.
26. Sorvig, K., (1991), Water design special effects. Landscape Architecture, 81 (12): 72-75.
27. Şentürk, N., 1990, Su Bahçeleri Planlama ve Uygulama Teknikleri Üzerine Araştırmalar. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ege Üniversitesi, Peyzaj Mim. Böl., İzmir, Turkey (Language: Turkish, Translated title: Research on design techniques and building methods for water gardens).
28. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., 1986, Recovery from stress during exposure to everyday outdoor environments. In: Bornes R., Zimring, C., & Wineman, C. (Eds.), The cost of not knowing. Washington D.C: Environmental Design Research Association.
29. Ward, L. M., Russel, J. A., 1981, Cognitive set and the perception of place. Environment and Behavior, 13 (5): 610-632.
30. Whyte, W. H., 1980, The social life of small urban spaces. Washington D.C.: The Conservation Foundation.
31. Yang, B., Brown, T. J., 1992, A cross-cultural comparison of preferences for landscape styles and landscape elements. Environment and Behavior, 24 (4): 471-507.