Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Cultural Landscape and Place Attachment: Case of Van City (Turkey)

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 29 Sayı: 1, 10 - 23, 29.03.2019
https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.422054

Öz

The relations between individuals, society and
landscape can be understood and predicted through landscapes that are a kind of
document about past, present and future with their tangible and intangible
heritage values.  Relations with cultural
landscape through their natural and cultural heritage values provide a wide
range of benefits from physical, mental and cognitive development to economic
development to individuals and societies. In this article, it is aimed to
determine the relations of the inhabitants of the city of Van with the
landscape within the framework of the UNESCO Historical Urban Landscape (HUL)
Recommendation in order to inform the participatory approach to Van cultural
landscape management. For this purpose, a survey conducted with 254 inhabitants
living in the center of Van city and its close vicinity in order to identify;
the importance given to natural and cultural heritage, survey participants’
sense of place, level of knowing the folk songs and the relations between these
variables were examined. The frequencies and significance scores as well as the
spatial densities of these variables were determined and the relationships
between them were examined by Pearson correlation analysis. The findings showed
that both the important natural and cultural heritage and the important cultural
landscapes for the participants are mainly the areas which provide multiple
benefits such as recreation, scenery, learning about history and nature and
sense of place. In this context, Van Lake and its surroundings, Muradiye
Waterfall, Akdamar Church and Van Castle and its surroundings are the prominent
places. In terms of sense of place, participants’ place attachment to Van is
above the average and there is a high meaningful correlation between
participants’ place identity and sense of place. The first two folk songs in
terms of level of recognition by the survey participants have shown that natural
and cultural heritage of Van have importance in their attachment to Van and Van
identity. In this context, it should be ensured that the users can establish
stronger connections with all the heritage features of Van in order to transfer
Van cultural landscape’s tangible and intangible heritage values to the future.

Kaynakça

  • Referans1 Antrop M (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and Urban Planning. 70 (1–2): 21–34.
  • Referans2 Avrupa Komisyonu (2000). European Landscape Convention (ETS no. 176), Erisim tarihi: 5 Nisan 2017. Web adresi: https://rm.coe.int/1680080621
  • Referans3 Avrupa Komisyonu (2018). Faro Sözleşmesi. Erişim tarihi: 07 Mayıs 2018. Web adresi: https://www.coe.int/en/web/culture-and-heritage/faro-convention.
  • Referans4 Baylan E (2017). Kişisel fotoğraf arşivi.
  • Referans5 Bojorquez-Tapia, LA, de la Cueva H, Diaz S, Melgarejo D, Alcantar G, Solares MJ, Grobet G, Cruz-Bello G (2004). Environmental conflicts and nature reserves: redesigning Sierra San Pedro Martir National Park, Mexico. Biological Conservation. 117:111-126.
  • Referans6 Brown G (2004). Mapping Spatial Attributes in Survey Research for Natural Resource Management: Methods and Applications. Society and Natural Resources. 18:17–39.
  • Referans7 Brown G, Raymond C (2007). The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied geography. 27(2): 89-111.
  • Referans8 Buchy M, Hoverman S (2000). Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review. Forest Policy and Economics. 1: 15-25.
  • Referans9 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Erişim tarihi: 1 Nisan 2017. Web adresi: http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/
  • Referans10 Faro Convention (2005). Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. Council of Europe Treaty Series - No. 199. Erişim tarihi: 07 Mayıs 2018. Web adresi: https://rm.coe.int/1680083746
  • Referans11 Fellman J, Getis A, Getis J (1990). Human Geography: Landcapes of Human Activities, Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
  • Referans12 Güler M, Ekinci Y (2010). Tarihi Çevre Korumanın Yönetsel Boyutu ve Alan Yönetimi. Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler. 19(3): 1-24.
  • Referans13 ICOMOS USA. 2004. Natchitoches Declaration on Heritage Landscapes. Erişim tarihi: 5 Nisan 2017. Web adresi: http://www.icomos.org/
  • Referans14 Jorgensen BS, Stedman RC (2001). Sense of Place As An Attitude: Lakeshore Owners Attitudes Toward Their Properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 21, 233-248.
  • Referans15 Karabaşa S (2014). Uygulamaları Açısından Somut Olmayan Kültürel Miras ve Folklor.Folklor/Edebiyat. 20 (80): 99-105.
  • Referans16 Naveh Z (1995). Interactions of landscapes and cultures. Landscape and Urban Planning. 32 (1), 43-54.
  • Referans17 Pinto-Correia T, Gustavsson R, Pirnat J (2006). Bridging the gap between centrally defined policies and local decisions–Towards more sensitive and creative rural landscape management.Landscape Ecology. 21(3): 333-346.
  • Referans18 Plieninger T, Bieling C (2012). Resilience and the Cultural Landscape – Understanding and Managing Change in Human-Shaped Environments, 1st ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  • Referans19 Reed MS (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological conservation. 141(10): 2417-2431.
  • Referans20 Sauer CO (1925). The morphology of landscape, University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.
  • Referans21 Silverman H, Ruggles DF (2007). Cultural Heritage and Human Rights, New York: Springer.
  • Referans22 Stephenson J (2008). The cultural values model: an integrated approach to values in landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 84: 127 139.
  • Referans23 Taylor K, Lennon J (2011). Cultural landscapes: a bridge between culture and nature?. International Journal of Heritage Studies.17(6): 537-554.
  • Referans24 Tengberg A, Fredholm S, Eliasson I, Knez I, Saltzman K, Wetterberg O (2012). Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosystem Services. 2: 14-26.
  • Referans25 Zube EH (1987). Perceived land use patterns and landscape values”, Landscape Ecology. 1 (1): 37-45.
  • Referans26 Wu T, Petriello MA (2011). Culture and biodiversity losses linked. Letters to Science. 331: 30.

Kültürel Peyzaj ve Yere Bağlılık: Van Kenti Örneği

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 29 Sayı: 1, 10 - 23, 29.03.2019
https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.422054

Öz

Somut ve soyut miras değerleriyle, geçmişe, bugüne ve
geleceğe ilişkin bir belge niteliğindeki peyzaj aracılığıyla, bireyler, toplum
ve peyzaj arasındaki ilişkiler anlaşılabilir ve geleceğe yönelik öngörülerde
bulunulabilir. Doğal ve kültürel miras değerleri ile kültürel peyzajla kurulan
ilişkiler, bireylere ve toplumlara, fiziksel, ruhsal ve bilişsel gelişimden
ekonomik kalkınmaya kadar geniş çeşitlilikte yarar sağlamaktadır.
Makalede, Van kültürel
peyzajının katılımcı yaklaşımla yönetimine
bilgi sağlamak üzere, UNESCO Tarihi Kent Peyzajları
Tavsiyesi çerçevesinde, Kent’te yaşayanların peyzaj ile kurdukları bağların
belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla, Van Kent merkezi ve yakın çevresinde
yaşayan 254 kişiye uygulanan anket çalışması ile katılımcıların; Van’ın somut
doğal ve kültürel miras öğelerine verdiği önem, yer duygusu özellikleri, soyut
miras öğelerinden yöresel türküleri bilme düzeyi ve bu değişkenler arasındaki
ilişkiler incelenmiştir. Bu değişkenlerin sıklık ve önem puanı değerleri yanısıra
mekansal yoğunlukları belirlenmiştir ve aralarındaki ilişkiler Pearson
korelasyon analizi ile incelenmiştir. Bulgular anket
katılımcılarının, Kent’te gerek doğal ve kültürel miras gerekse kültürel peyzaj
olarak önem verdiği alanların temelde; rekreasyon, manzara keyfi, tarih ve doğa
hakkında bilgi edinme ve yere bağlılık gibi birden çok yararı birlikte sağlayan
ve az da olsa turizm-rekreasyon alt yapısı bulunan alanlar olduğunu
göstermiştir. Van Gölü ve çevresi, Muradiye Şelalesi, Akdamar Kilisesi ile Van
Kalesi ve çevresi bu bağlamda öne çıkan yerlerdir. Katılımcıların, yer
duygusu özellikleri kapsamında incelenen Van’a bağlılıkları, ortalamanın
üstündedir; bu bağlılıkta yer kimliği özellikleri yüksek düzeyde etkilidir. Bilinme düzeyi bakımından ilk iki sırada gelen türküler, Van’ın
doğal ve kültürel mirasının, katılımcıların Van’a bağlılıklarında ve Van
kimliğinde yeri olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu bağlamda, Kent’in somut ve soyut
miras değerlerinin kaybedilmeden geleceğe aktarılması için kullanıcılarının, tüm
miras değerleri ile daha güçlü ilişkiler kurabilmesi sağlanmalıdır. 

Kaynakça

  • Referans1 Antrop M (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and Urban Planning. 70 (1–2): 21–34.
  • Referans2 Avrupa Komisyonu (2000). European Landscape Convention (ETS no. 176), Erisim tarihi: 5 Nisan 2017. Web adresi: https://rm.coe.int/1680080621
  • Referans3 Avrupa Komisyonu (2018). Faro Sözleşmesi. Erişim tarihi: 07 Mayıs 2018. Web adresi: https://www.coe.int/en/web/culture-and-heritage/faro-convention.
  • Referans4 Baylan E (2017). Kişisel fotoğraf arşivi.
  • Referans5 Bojorquez-Tapia, LA, de la Cueva H, Diaz S, Melgarejo D, Alcantar G, Solares MJ, Grobet G, Cruz-Bello G (2004). Environmental conflicts and nature reserves: redesigning Sierra San Pedro Martir National Park, Mexico. Biological Conservation. 117:111-126.
  • Referans6 Brown G (2004). Mapping Spatial Attributes in Survey Research for Natural Resource Management: Methods and Applications. Society and Natural Resources. 18:17–39.
  • Referans7 Brown G, Raymond C (2007). The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied geography. 27(2): 89-111.
  • Referans8 Buchy M, Hoverman S (2000). Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review. Forest Policy and Economics. 1: 15-25.
  • Referans9 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Erişim tarihi: 1 Nisan 2017. Web adresi: http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/
  • Referans10 Faro Convention (2005). Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. Council of Europe Treaty Series - No. 199. Erişim tarihi: 07 Mayıs 2018. Web adresi: https://rm.coe.int/1680083746
  • Referans11 Fellman J, Getis A, Getis J (1990). Human Geography: Landcapes of Human Activities, Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
  • Referans12 Güler M, Ekinci Y (2010). Tarihi Çevre Korumanın Yönetsel Boyutu ve Alan Yönetimi. Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler. 19(3): 1-24.
  • Referans13 ICOMOS USA. 2004. Natchitoches Declaration on Heritage Landscapes. Erişim tarihi: 5 Nisan 2017. Web adresi: http://www.icomos.org/
  • Referans14 Jorgensen BS, Stedman RC (2001). Sense of Place As An Attitude: Lakeshore Owners Attitudes Toward Their Properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 21, 233-248.
  • Referans15 Karabaşa S (2014). Uygulamaları Açısından Somut Olmayan Kültürel Miras ve Folklor.Folklor/Edebiyat. 20 (80): 99-105.
  • Referans16 Naveh Z (1995). Interactions of landscapes and cultures. Landscape and Urban Planning. 32 (1), 43-54.
  • Referans17 Pinto-Correia T, Gustavsson R, Pirnat J (2006). Bridging the gap between centrally defined policies and local decisions–Towards more sensitive and creative rural landscape management.Landscape Ecology. 21(3): 333-346.
  • Referans18 Plieninger T, Bieling C (2012). Resilience and the Cultural Landscape – Understanding and Managing Change in Human-Shaped Environments, 1st ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  • Referans19 Reed MS (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological conservation. 141(10): 2417-2431.
  • Referans20 Sauer CO (1925). The morphology of landscape, University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.
  • Referans21 Silverman H, Ruggles DF (2007). Cultural Heritage and Human Rights, New York: Springer.
  • Referans22 Stephenson J (2008). The cultural values model: an integrated approach to values in landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 84: 127 139.
  • Referans23 Taylor K, Lennon J (2011). Cultural landscapes: a bridge between culture and nature?. International Journal of Heritage Studies.17(6): 537-554.
  • Referans24 Tengberg A, Fredholm S, Eliasson I, Knez I, Saltzman K, Wetterberg O (2012). Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosystem Services. 2: 14-26.
  • Referans25 Zube EH (1987). Perceived land use patterns and landscape values”, Landscape Ecology. 1 (1): 37-45.
  • Referans26 Wu T, Petriello MA (2011). Culture and biodiversity losses linked. Letters to Science. 331: 30.
Toplam 26 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Emel Baylan 0000-0002-7295-5848

Yayımlanma Tarihi 29 Mart 2019
Kabul Tarihi 4 Mart 2019
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2019 Cilt: 29 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Baylan, E. (2019). Kültürel Peyzaj ve Yere Bağlılık: Van Kenti Örneği. Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 29(1), 10-23. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.422054

Creative Commons License
Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi CC BY 4.0 lisanslıdır.