Evaluation of Models Used in Environmental Aesthetics and Proposing a New Model in the Context of Biophilia

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 23, 75 - 86, 23.01.2020

Saeideh Abdollahi Hilmi Ekin Oktay

https://doi.org/10.17484/yedi.626883

Cited By: 2

Öz

The relationship, interaction and connection between
human and nature are evident in today's modern society. Because people lived in
nature in the past, they existed with the nature they live in. Due to the fact
that our current lives are surrounded by technology, people now exist within
the concept that we call human environments.

People interpret their environment in terms of aesthetics
and adaptation to user conditions. This aesthetic assessment has been studied
in recent years under the name of environmental aesthetics. The relationship
between human and life demonstrates it’s meaning in the ‘Biophilia’ hypothesis.
Biophilia is considered that people are producing and nurturing ideas,
interpretations and evaluations with an innate tendency towards the nature in
which they live and exist, both cognitively and instinctively. In this article,
five models evaluated by researchers on environmental aesthetics have been
examined as a result of literature surveys. As a result, new models have been
tried to be developed in the context of biophilia hypothesis according to
criticized or confirmed points.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Environmental Aesthetics, Biophilia, Environmental Aesthetics Models

Çevre Estetiğinde Kullanılan Modellerin Değerlendirilmesi ve Biyofilya Bağlamında Yeni Bir Model Önerisi

Öz

İnsan
ve doğa arasındaki ilişki, etkileşim ve bağ günümüzün modern toplumunda açık
bir şekilde görülmektedir. Eskiden insanlar birebir doğa içinde yaşadıkları
için, yaşadıkları doğayla var olmaktaydılar. Günümüzdeki hayatımızın
teknolojiyle sarmalanması nedeniyle insanlar artık insani çevreler dediğimiz
kavram içerisinde var olmaktadırlar.

İnsanlar
yaşadıkları çevreyi estetik anlamda ve kullanıcı şartlarına uyum çerçevesinde
yorumlamaktadırlar. Bu estetik değerlendirme son yıllarda çevre estetiği adı
altında çalışılmaktadır. İnsan-yaşam arasındaki bağ, ‘Biyofilya’ hipotezinde
anlam kazanmaktadır. Biyofilya İnsanların yaşadıkları ve var oldukları doğaya
karşı, gerek bilişsel, gerek içgüdüsel olarak doğuştan gelen bir eğilimle
fikirler, yorumlar ve değerlendirmeler üretip beslemekte oldukları anlamında
değerlendirilmektedir. Bu makalede literatür taramaları sonucu çevre estetiği
konusundaki araştırmacıların değerlendirdiği beş modeli incelenmiştir, sonuç
olarak eleştirilen veya doğrulanan noktalara göre, biyofilia hipotezi
bağlamında yeni modeller geliştirilmeye çalışılmıştır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çevre Estetiği, Biyofilya, Çevre Estetiği Modelleri

Kaynakça

• Abdelaal, M.S. (2019). ‘’Biophilic campus: An emerging planning approach for a sustainable innovation-conducive university’’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 1445-1456.
• Anonim. (2019). https://www.gizushka.com/biyofili-nedir-kelimekolik/ (02.09.2019).
• Bayraktaroğlu, Ö. E. (2014). Mimarlıkta ekosistem düşüncesiyle tasarlamak. Doktora Tezi. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Berleant, A. (1992). The eesthetics of environment. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Brown, D.K., Barton, J.L., Gladwell, V.F. (2013). ‘’Viewing nature scenes positively affects recovery of autonomic function following acute mental stress’’, Environ Sci Technol, 4, 5562–5569.
• Carlson, A. (1979). ‘’Appreciation and the natural environment’’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism’’, 3, 267-275.
• Carlson, A. (2000). Aesthetics and the environment: The appreciation of nature, Art and architecture. New York: Routledge.
• Carlson, A. and Berleant, A. (2004). ‘’Introduction: The aesthetics of nature’’. In Carlson A. Berleant A. (Ed.), The Aesthetics of Natural Environments (p.11-42), Canada: Boardview Press.
• Carlson, A. and Lintott S. (2008). ‘’Introduction: natural aesthetic value and environmentalism’’. In Carlson A. Lintott S. (Ed.), Nature, Aesthetics, and environmentalism: From Beauty to Duty (p.1-22), USA: Columbia University Press.
• Carlson, A. (2009). Nature and landscape : An introduction to environmental aesthetics. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Çorakçı, R.E. (2016). İç mimarlıkta biyofilik tasarım ilkelerinin belirlenmesi (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Eleonora, G. (2000). ‘’ The biophilia hypothesis and life in the 21st century: Increasing mental health or increasing pathology?’’, Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 293-322.
• Gilpin, W. (1792). Three essays: on picturesque beauty, on picturesque Travel, and on the sketching landscape, London: Balmire.
• Heerwagen, J., Orians, G. (1993). Biophilia hypothesis. Washington: Island Press.
• Hepburn, R. (2004). ‘’Contemporary aesthetics and the neglect of natural beauty’’. In Carlson A. Berleant A. (Ed.), The Aesthetics of Natural Environments (p.11-42), Canada: Boardview Press.
• Ikei, H., Komatsu, M., Song, C.R. (2014). ‘’The physiological and psychological relaxing effects of viewing rose flowers in office workers’’, Journal Physiol Anthropol, 33, 1–5.
• Knight, R. P. (1794). The landscape. London: Bulmer.
• Nieuwenhuis, M., Knight, C., Postmes, T. (2014). ‘’The relative benefits of green versus lean office space: three field experiments’’, Journal Exp. Psychol. Appl., 20, 199–214.
• Price, U. (1794). An essay on the picturesque. London: Robson.
• Rosley, M.S., Abdul Rahman, S.R., Lamit, H. (2014). ‘’Biophilia theory revisited: Experts and non-experts perception on aesthetic of ecological landscape’’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 153, 349-362.
• Sanchez, J.A. Ikaga, T. Sanchez, S.V. (2018). ‘’Quantitative improvement in workplace performance through biophilic design: A pilot experiment case study’’, Energy and Buildings, 177, 316-328.
• Saito, Y. (1999). Everyday aesthetics. USA: Oxford University Press.
• Sepänmaa, Y. (1986). The beauty of environment: A general model for environmental aesthetics.USA: Environmental Ethics Books
• Tuan, Y. F. (1974). Topohilia, a study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. USA: Columbia University Press.
• Ulrich, R. S. (1993). ‘’Biophilia, biophobia and natural landscape’’. In S R. Kellert S. Wilson E.O (Ed.), Biophilia Hypothesis (p. 73-137), USA: Island Press.
• Van den Berg, A.E. Hartig, T. Staats, H. (2007). ‘’Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Streets, Restoration, and the Pursuit of Sustainability’’, Journal of Social Issues, 63, 88-89.
• Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. USA: Harvard University Press.
• Wilson, E. O. (1996). In search of nature. Washington: Harvard University Press.
• Zhang, W., Goodale, E., Chen, J. (2014). ‘’How contact with nature affects children’s biophilia, biophobia and conservation attitude in China’’, Biological Conservation, 177, 109-116.