Review
BibTex RIS Cite

Comparison of Various Methods on Aesthetic Visual Quality Assessment

Year 2019, Volume: 29 Issue: 1, 159 - 167, 29.03.2019
https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.432802

Abstract

The visual landscape
aesthetic quality is seen as a resource that is worth preserving in today's
condition. Landscape which is composed of relationship between human and
environment is expressed by people’s perception. However this is not just about
visual perception, or how we see the land, but also what we hear, smell and
feel from our surroundings, and memories or associations that they evoke, are
all form the landscape perception. There is not a certain evaluation standard
of the visual quality analysis studies which is mostly focusing on the
relationship between environmental preferences and the perception of landscape.
Therefore, in previous studies it is observed that different methods were used
for analysis and evaluation in order to determine the visual quality. Due to
predomination of visual experiences in the process of development of perception
in the human brain, various assessment methods have been developed to measure
the quality through photos of the desired area. While some studies focus on the
relationship between demographic characteristics and environmental preferences
of users; some studies examine only the relationship between landscape
character areas and aesthetic theories that affect visual quality. In studies
that uses both of the methods together; the potential quality of the landscape
is evaluated by considering the parameters which affect the perception and
aesthetic theories as well as by integrating the perspectives of the users. In
this review, the parameters that affect the visual quality of the landscape,
the elements shaping environmental preferences and methods that are used for visual
quality assessment will be compared and recommendations for future planning and
design studies will be included.

References

  • Ak, M. K., 2010. Akçakoca Kıyı Bandı Örneğinde Görsel Kalitenin Belirlenmesi ve Değerlendirilmesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma (doktora tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı, Ankara.
  • Ak, M. K., 2013. Visual Quality Assessment Methods in Landscape Architecture Studies, 11. Advances in Landscape Architecture (Murat Özyavuz). IntechOpen Limited, İngiltere.
  • Anonim, 2018. https://m.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016802faf1f. Orman ve Su İşleri Bakanlığı, Ankara. Erişim Tarihi: 21.03.2018
  • Berlyne, D. E. 1960. Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. McGraw-Hill, New York.
  • Berlyne, D. E. 1971. Aesthetics and Psychobiology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
  • Bulut, Z., Yılmaz, H., 2008. ”Determination of Landscape Beauties Through Visual Quality Assessment Method: A Case Study For Kemaliye (Erzincan/Turkey)”, İnönü Üniversitesi Sanat Ve Tasarım Dergisi , 141:121–129.
  • Clay G. R., Daniel T. C., 2000. “Scenic Landscape Assessment: The Effects of Land Management Jurisdiction on Public Perception of Scenic Beauty”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 49: 1-13.
  • Çakcı, I., 2007. Peyzaj Planlama Çalışmalarında Görsel Peyzaj Değerlendirmesine Yönelik Bir Yöntem Çalışması (doktora tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı, Ankara.
  • Çakcı, I., Çelem, H., 2009. “Kent Parklarında Görsel Peyzaj Algısının Değerlendirilmesi”, Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 15(1): 88-95.
  • Daniel, T.C., Boster, R.S., 1976. “Measuring Landscape Esthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method”, USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range experiment Station Forest Service U.S., Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain.
  • Daniel, T. C., 2001. Whither Scenic Beauty? Visual Landscape Quality Assessment in the 21st Century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54 (1-4): 267-281.
  • Dinçer, A. A., 2011. Görsel Peyzaj Kalitesinin ‘Biçimsel Estetik Değerlendirme Yaklaşımı’ ile İrdelenmesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma (yüksek lisans tezi, basılmamış). Ankara Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Elinç, H., 2011. Görsel Kalite Değerlendirmesi Yöntemi ile Antalya İli Alanya İlçesindeki Abdurrahman Alaettinoğlu ve Alanya Belediye Başkanları Kent Parklarının İrdelenmesi (yüksek lisans tezi). Selçuk Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Konya.
  • Erdönmez İ. M. Ö., Kaptanoğlu A. Y. Ç., 2007. “Peyzaj Estetiği ve Görsel Kalite Değerlendirmesi”, İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 39-51.
  • Garré, S., Meeus & Gulinck, H., 2009. The Dual Role Of Roads İn The Visual Landscape: A case-study in the area around Mechelen (Belgium). Landscape and Urban Planning, 92: 125-135.
  • Gobster, P.H., 1999. An Ecological Aesthetic For Forest Landscape Management. Landscape Journal, 18: 54-64.
  • Gültürk, P., Şişman, E. E., 2015. “Tekirdağ Kent Merkezi Kıyı Şeridinin Görsel Peyzaj Kalitesi Yönünden Değerlendirilmesi ve Mekân Tercihine Etkisi”, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(1) : 81 – 89.
  • Habron, D.,1998. Visual Perception of Wild Land in Scotland. Landscape and Urban Planning 42,45-56.
  • Hull, R.B., Buhyoff, G.J., 1983. Distance and Scenic Beauty, A Nonmonotonic Relationship. Environmental Behaviour, 15(1), 77-91.
  • Hull, R.B., Buhyoff, G.J., 1984a. Individual and Group Reliability of Landscape Assessments. Landscape Planning 11, 67-71.
  • Hull, R.B., Buhyoff, G.J., Daniel, T.C., 1984b. Measurement of Scenic Beauty: The Law of Comparative Judgement and Scenic Beauty Estimation Procedures. Forest Science, 30(4), 1084-1096.
  • Hull, R.B., Buhyoff, G.J., 1986a. The Scenic Beauty Temporal Distribution Method: An Attempt To Make Scenic Beauty Assessments Compatible with Forest Planning Efforts. Forest Science, 32(2), 271-286.
  • Hull, R.B., 1986b. Sensitivity of Scenic Beauty Assessments. Landscape Urban Planning, 13, 319-321.
  • Hull, R.B., Buhyoff, G.J., Cordell, H.K., 1987b. Psychophysical Models: An Example with Scenic Beauty Perceptions of Roadside Pine Forests. Landscape. Journal, 6(2), 113-121.
  • Hull, R.B., McCarthy, M.M., 1988. Change in the landscape. Landscape Urban Planning, 15, 265-278.
  • Hull, R.B., Revell, G.R., 1989. Cross-cultural Comparison of Landscape Scenic Beauty Evaluations: A Case Study in Bali. J. Environmental Psychology. 9, 177-191.
  • Hull, R.B., Stewart, W.P., 1992a. Validity of Photo-Based Scenic Beauty Judgements. J. Environmental Psychology, 12, 101-114.
  • Hull, R.B., Stewart, W.P., Yi, Y.K., 1992b. Experience Patterns: Capturing The Dynamic Nature of A Recreation Experience. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(3), 240-252.
  • Hull, R.B., Stewart, W.P., 1995. The Landscape Encountered and Experienced While Hiking. Environmental Behaviour, 27(3), 404-426.
  • Iverson, W.D., 1975. Assessing Landscape Resources: A Proposed Model. In: Zube, E.H., Brush, R.O., Fabos, J.G. (Eds.), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA, s. 274-288.
  • Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. & Wendt, J.S., 1972. Rated Preference and Complexity For Natural and Urban Material. Percept Psychophys. 12(4), 354-356.
  • Kaplan, R., 1977. Preference and Everyday Nature: Method and Application. In: Stokols, D. (Ed.), Perspectives on Environmental Behaviour - Theory, Research and Applications. Plenum Press, New York, s: 235-250.
  • Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1982. Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World. Praeger, New York.
  • Kaplan, S., 1987. Aesthetics, affect and cognition: environment preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environmental Behaviour, 19(1), 3-32.
  • Kaplan, R., Herbert, E.J., 1987. Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landscape Urban Planning 14, 281-293.
  • Kaplan, R., Talbot, J.F., 1988. Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: a review and recent findings. Landscape Urban Planning 15, 107-117.
  • Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., Brown, T., 1989a. Environment preference: a comparison of four domains of predictors. Environmental Behaviour 21(5), 509-530.
  • Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989b. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Kaplan, A., Coşkun Hepcan, Ç., 2004. “Ege Üniversitesi Kampüsü ‘Sevgi Yolu’nun Görsel (Etki) Değerlendirme Çalışması”, Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 41 (1):159-167, İzmir.
  • Kaplan, R., Kaplan S., Ryan R. L., 1998. With People in Mind. Island Press, s:239, USA.
  • Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. “The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective”, Cambridge University Press, New York.
  • Kaptanoğlu. A. Y. Ç., 2006. Peyzaj Değerlendirmesinde Görsel Canlandırma Tekniklerinin Kullanıcı Tercihine Etkileri. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı, Doktora Tezi. İstanbul.
  • Laurie, I., 1975. Aesthetic Factors in Visual Evaluation, Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resource. Dowden Hutchingon & Ross inc. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.
  • Leopold, L.B., 1969. Landscape Esthetics: How to Quantify the Scenics of A River Valley. In: Natural History, vol. 36-45, s. 454-467.
  • Lewis, P. 1966. Tomorrow by Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Linton, D.L., 1968. The Assessment of Scenery As A Natural Resource. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 84(3), 219-238.
  • Litton, R.B., Jr., 1968. Forest Landscape Description and Inventories. Berkeley, USDA, Forest Service, Pacific South West Forest and Range Experimental Station Research Paper PSW-49.
  • Litton, R.B., Jr., 1972. Aesthetic Dimensions of the Landscape. In: Krutilla, J.V. (Ed.), Natural Environments, Studies in Theoretical and Applied Analysis. Resources for the Future, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, s. 262-291.
  • Litton, R.B., Jr., 1982. Visual Assessment of Natural Landscapes. In: Sadler, B., Carlson, A. (Eds.), Environmental Aesthetics: Essays in Interpretation. Western Geographical Series, vol. 20, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, s. 95-115.
  • Martin, J., 1993. Assessing the landscape. Landscape Design, 222, 21-23.
  • Lothian, A., 1999. Landscape And The Philosophy Of Aesthetics: Is Landscape Quality Inherent In the Landscape or In the Eye of the Beholder. Landscape and Urban Planning, 44: 177-199.
  • Lynch, K., 1960. The Image of the City. The MIT Press, U.S.A.
  • McHarg, I., 1969. Design with Nature. The MIT Press, U.S.A.
  • Nasar, J., Julian, D., Buchman, S., Humphreys, D., Mrohaly, M., 1988. The emotional quality of scenes and observation points: a look at prospect and refuge. In: Nasar, J. (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York, s. 357–363.
  • Nicholls, D.C., Sclater, A., 1993. Cutting Quality Down to Scale. Landscape Design, 222, 39-41.
  • Özhancı, E., Yılmaz H., 2011. “Rekreasyon Alanlarının Görsel Peyzaj Kalitesi Yönünden Değerlendirilmesi; Erzurum Örneği”, Iğdır Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(2): 67-76.Palmer, J. F., & Hoffman, R. E., 2001. “Rating Reliability and Representation Validity in Scenic Landscape Assessments”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1-4): 149-161.
  • Palmer, J. F., 2003. Research Agenda for Landscape Perception. s: 163-172 Ed.: E. Buhmann, S. Ervin . Trends in Landscape Modeling. Heidelberg , Germany.
  • Parsons, R. & Daniel, T.C., 2002. Good Looking: in Defense of Scenic Landscape Aesthetics, Landscape and Urban Planning, 60: 43-56.
  • Polat, A.T., Güngör, S., Adıyaman, S., 2011. Konya Kenti Yakın Çevresindeki Kentsel Rekreasyon Alanlarının Görsel Kalitesi İle Kullanıcıların Demografik Özellikleri Arasındaki İlişkiler. I. Ulusal Akdeniz Orman ve Çevre Sempozyumu, Kahramanmaraş, 607-617.
  • Pouyaa, S., Behbahania, H. I., 2017. Assessment of The Visual Landscape Quality Based On The Subjectivist Paradigm to Design The Memorial Garden. Türkiye Ormancılık Dergisi, 18(3): 171-177.
  • Ramos, A.F., Ramos, P., Cifuentes, M., Fernandez-Canadas, 1976. Visual Landscape Evaluation, A Grid Technique. Landscape Planning, 3,67-88.
  • Sayın, G., 2011. Kentsel Yerleşim Alanlarında Peyzaj Kalitesini Artıracak Ölçütlerin Saptanması ve Dikmen Vadisi Örneğinde İncelenmesi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı (yüksek lisans tezi), Ankara.
  • Skřivanová, Z., Kalivoda, O., 2014. Consensus in Landscape Preference Judgments: The effects of Landscape Visual Aesthetic Quality and Respondents’ Characteristics. Journal of Environmental Management, 137, 36-44.
  • Smardon, R.C., J.F. Palmer & J.P. Felleman., 1988. Foundations for Visual Project Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, ISN 0471881848. 374 s. New York.
  • Schroeder, H.W., Daniel, T.C., 1980. Predicting The Scenic Quality of Forest Road Corridors. Environmental Behaviour, 12(3), 349-366.
  • Schroeder, H.W., Daniel, T.C., 1981. Progress in Predicting the Perceived Scenic Beauty of Forest Landscapes. Forest Science, 27(1), 71-80.
  • Schroeder, H.W., Brown, T.C., 1983. Alternative Functional Forms for an Inventory-based Landscape Perception Model. Journal Leisure Research, 15(2), 156-163.
  • Schroeder, H.W., 1984. Environmental Perception Rating Scales – A Case for Simple Methods of Analysis. Environmental Behaviour, 16(5), 573-598.
  • Schroeder, H.W., 1991. Preference and Meaning of Arboretum Landscapes: Combining Quantitative and Qualitative data. J. Environmental Psychology, 11, 231-248.
  • Temelli, M., 2008. Çukurova Üniversitesi Yerleşkesi Örneğinde Görsel Etki Değerlendirme Çalışmalarına Metodolojik Bir Yaklaşım (yüksek lisans tezi,basılmamış). Çukurova Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Adana. Tüfekçioğlu, K. H., 2008. Tarihsel Çevrede Görsel Peyzaj Kalite Değerlendirmesi Yedikule Örneği (yüksek lisans tezi, basılmamış). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Tveit, M., Ode, A., Fry, G., 2006. Key Concepts in A Frame For Analysing Visual Landscape Character, Landscape Research, 31: 229-255.
  • Urlich, R.S., 1977. Visual Landscape Preference: a Model and Application. Man-Environment Systems, 7, 279-293.
  • Urlich, R.S., 1979. Visual Landscapes and Psychological Wellbeing. Landscape Research, 4, 17-23.
  • Urlich, R.S., 1981. Natural vs. Urban Scenes - Some Psychological Effects. Environmental Behaviour, 135, 523-556.
  • Urlich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A., Zelson, M., 1991. Stress Recovery During Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments. J. Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230.
  • UK Countryside Commission, 1987. Landscape Assessment: a Countryside Commission Approach. CCD 128. Cheltenham.
  • Wang, R., Zhao. J., 2016. Demographic Groups’ Differences in Visual Preference for Vegetated Landscapes in Urban Green Space, Sustainable Cities and Society, 28 (2017): 350–357.
  • Wohlwill, J. F. 1983. The Concept of Nature: A Psychologist's View. Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research, 6, 5-37.
  • Wu, Y., Bishop, I., Hossain, H., Sposito, V., 2006. Using GIS in Landscape Visual Quality Assessment. Applied GIS, Monash University Epress.
  • Zhao, J., Luo, P., Wang, R., Cai, Y., 2013. ”Correlations Between Aesthetic Preferences of River and Landscape Characters”, Journal Of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 21(2): 123–132.
  • Zube, E.H., 1973. Rating Everyday Rural Landscapes of the Northeastern US. Landscape Architecture, 63(4), 370-375.
  • Zube, E.H., Anderson, T., Pitt, D., 1974. Measuring the Landscape: Perceptual Responses and Physical Dimensions. Landscape Research, News 1, 6.
  • Zube, E.H., Pitt, D.G., Anderson, T.W., 1975. Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the northeast. In: Zube, E.H., Brush, R.O., Fabos, J.G. (Eds.), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA, s. 151-167.
  • Zube, E.H., Mills, L.V., 1976. Cross-cultural explorations in landscape perception. In: Zube, E.H. (Eds.), Studies in Landscape Perception. Publication R-76-1, Institute for Man and Environment, University of Massachusetts, MA, s. 162-169.
  • Zube, E.H., Pitt, D.G., 1981. Cross-cultural Perceptions of Scenic and Heritage Landscapes. Landscape Planning, 8, 69-87.
  • Zube, E.H., Sell, G.L., Taylor, J.G., 1982. Landscape Perception: Research, Application and Theory. Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33.
  • Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., & Evans, G. W., 1983. A lifespan developmental study of landscape assessment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(2), 115–128.

Çeşitli Yöntemlerin Karşılaştırılması ile Görsel Estetik Kalite Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2019, Volume: 29 Issue: 1, 159 - 167, 29.03.2019
https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.432802

Abstract

Peyzajın görsel estetik kalitesi, günümüz
koşullarında korunmaya değer bir kaynak olarak görülmektedir. İnsan ve çevre ilişkisinden
oluşan peyzaj insanların algısı ile ifade edilir. Ancak bu sadece görsel
algıdan ya da çevremizi nasıl gördüğümüzden ibaret değildir; ayrıca duyduğumuz,
kokusunu aldığımız, çevrenin bize hissettirdikleri, bize çağrıştırdığı duygular
ve anılar da peyzaj algısını oluştururlar. Çoğunlukla peyzaj algısı ile çevre
tercihleri arasındaki ilişkiye odaklanan görsel kalite analizi çalışmalarında,
belli bir değerlendirme standardı bulunmamaktadır. Bu nedenle, görsel kaliteyi
belirlemeye yönelik daha önce yapılmış çalışmalarda birbirinden farklı analiz
ve değerlendirme yöntemlerinin kullanılmış olduğu belirlenmiştir. İnsan
zihninde algının gelişim sürecinde, görsel deneyimlerin baskın olması
nedeniyle, kalitesi ölçümlenmek istenen alanların fotoğrafları üzerinden
çeşitli değerlendirme yöntemleri geliştirilmiştir. Yapılan çalışmaların bir
bölümü, kullanıcıların demografik özellikleri ve çevre tercihleri arasındaki
ilişki üzerine yoğunlaşırken; bazı çalışmalarda ise yalnızca peyzaj karakter
alanları ve görsel kaliteyi etkileyen estetik kuramlar arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir.
Her iki yöntemin birlikte kullanıldığı çalışmalarda ise peyzajın potansiyel
kalitesi; algıyı etkileyen parametreler ve estetik kuramları ele almanın yanı sıra,
kullanıcıların bakış açısı da bütünleştirilerek ele alınmıştır. Bu derlemede,
peyzajın görsel kalitesini etkileyen parametreler, çevre tercihlerinin
şekillenmesinde etkili olan unsurlar ve görsel kalite değerlendirmesinde kullanılan
yöntemler karşılaştırılmış ve ileriye yönelik planlama ve tasarım çalışmaları için
önerilere yer verilmiştir. 

References

  • Ak, M. K., 2010. Akçakoca Kıyı Bandı Örneğinde Görsel Kalitenin Belirlenmesi ve Değerlendirilmesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma (doktora tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı, Ankara.
  • Ak, M. K., 2013. Visual Quality Assessment Methods in Landscape Architecture Studies, 11. Advances in Landscape Architecture (Murat Özyavuz). IntechOpen Limited, İngiltere.
  • Anonim, 2018. https://m.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016802faf1f. Orman ve Su İşleri Bakanlığı, Ankara. Erişim Tarihi: 21.03.2018
  • Berlyne, D. E. 1960. Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. McGraw-Hill, New York.
  • Berlyne, D. E. 1971. Aesthetics and Psychobiology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
  • Bulut, Z., Yılmaz, H., 2008. ”Determination of Landscape Beauties Through Visual Quality Assessment Method: A Case Study For Kemaliye (Erzincan/Turkey)”, İnönü Üniversitesi Sanat Ve Tasarım Dergisi , 141:121–129.
  • Clay G. R., Daniel T. C., 2000. “Scenic Landscape Assessment: The Effects of Land Management Jurisdiction on Public Perception of Scenic Beauty”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 49: 1-13.
  • Çakcı, I., 2007. Peyzaj Planlama Çalışmalarında Görsel Peyzaj Değerlendirmesine Yönelik Bir Yöntem Çalışması (doktora tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı, Ankara.
  • Çakcı, I., Çelem, H., 2009. “Kent Parklarında Görsel Peyzaj Algısının Değerlendirilmesi”, Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 15(1): 88-95.
  • Daniel, T.C., Boster, R.S., 1976. “Measuring Landscape Esthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method”, USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range experiment Station Forest Service U.S., Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain.
  • Daniel, T. C., 2001. Whither Scenic Beauty? Visual Landscape Quality Assessment in the 21st Century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54 (1-4): 267-281.
  • Dinçer, A. A., 2011. Görsel Peyzaj Kalitesinin ‘Biçimsel Estetik Değerlendirme Yaklaşımı’ ile İrdelenmesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma (yüksek lisans tezi, basılmamış). Ankara Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Elinç, H., 2011. Görsel Kalite Değerlendirmesi Yöntemi ile Antalya İli Alanya İlçesindeki Abdurrahman Alaettinoğlu ve Alanya Belediye Başkanları Kent Parklarının İrdelenmesi (yüksek lisans tezi). Selçuk Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Konya.
  • Erdönmez İ. M. Ö., Kaptanoğlu A. Y. Ç., 2007. “Peyzaj Estetiği ve Görsel Kalite Değerlendirmesi”, İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 39-51.
  • Garré, S., Meeus & Gulinck, H., 2009. The Dual Role Of Roads İn The Visual Landscape: A case-study in the area around Mechelen (Belgium). Landscape and Urban Planning, 92: 125-135.
  • Gobster, P.H., 1999. An Ecological Aesthetic For Forest Landscape Management. Landscape Journal, 18: 54-64.
  • Gültürk, P., Şişman, E. E., 2015. “Tekirdağ Kent Merkezi Kıyı Şeridinin Görsel Peyzaj Kalitesi Yönünden Değerlendirilmesi ve Mekân Tercihine Etkisi”, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(1) : 81 – 89.
  • Habron, D.,1998. Visual Perception of Wild Land in Scotland. Landscape and Urban Planning 42,45-56.
  • Hull, R.B., Buhyoff, G.J., 1983. Distance and Scenic Beauty, A Nonmonotonic Relationship. Environmental Behaviour, 15(1), 77-91.
  • Hull, R.B., Buhyoff, G.J., 1984a. Individual and Group Reliability of Landscape Assessments. Landscape Planning 11, 67-71.
  • Hull, R.B., Buhyoff, G.J., Daniel, T.C., 1984b. Measurement of Scenic Beauty: The Law of Comparative Judgement and Scenic Beauty Estimation Procedures. Forest Science, 30(4), 1084-1096.
  • Hull, R.B., Buhyoff, G.J., 1986a. The Scenic Beauty Temporal Distribution Method: An Attempt To Make Scenic Beauty Assessments Compatible with Forest Planning Efforts. Forest Science, 32(2), 271-286.
  • Hull, R.B., 1986b. Sensitivity of Scenic Beauty Assessments. Landscape Urban Planning, 13, 319-321.
  • Hull, R.B., Buhyoff, G.J., Cordell, H.K., 1987b. Psychophysical Models: An Example with Scenic Beauty Perceptions of Roadside Pine Forests. Landscape. Journal, 6(2), 113-121.
  • Hull, R.B., McCarthy, M.M., 1988. Change in the landscape. Landscape Urban Planning, 15, 265-278.
  • Hull, R.B., Revell, G.R., 1989. Cross-cultural Comparison of Landscape Scenic Beauty Evaluations: A Case Study in Bali. J. Environmental Psychology. 9, 177-191.
  • Hull, R.B., Stewart, W.P., 1992a. Validity of Photo-Based Scenic Beauty Judgements. J. Environmental Psychology, 12, 101-114.
  • Hull, R.B., Stewart, W.P., Yi, Y.K., 1992b. Experience Patterns: Capturing The Dynamic Nature of A Recreation Experience. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(3), 240-252.
  • Hull, R.B., Stewart, W.P., 1995. The Landscape Encountered and Experienced While Hiking. Environmental Behaviour, 27(3), 404-426.
  • Iverson, W.D., 1975. Assessing Landscape Resources: A Proposed Model. In: Zube, E.H., Brush, R.O., Fabos, J.G. (Eds.), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA, s. 274-288.
  • Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. & Wendt, J.S., 1972. Rated Preference and Complexity For Natural and Urban Material. Percept Psychophys. 12(4), 354-356.
  • Kaplan, R., 1977. Preference and Everyday Nature: Method and Application. In: Stokols, D. (Ed.), Perspectives on Environmental Behaviour - Theory, Research and Applications. Plenum Press, New York, s: 235-250.
  • Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1982. Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World. Praeger, New York.
  • Kaplan, S., 1987. Aesthetics, affect and cognition: environment preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environmental Behaviour, 19(1), 3-32.
  • Kaplan, R., Herbert, E.J., 1987. Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landscape Urban Planning 14, 281-293.
  • Kaplan, R., Talbot, J.F., 1988. Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: a review and recent findings. Landscape Urban Planning 15, 107-117.
  • Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., Brown, T., 1989a. Environment preference: a comparison of four domains of predictors. Environmental Behaviour 21(5), 509-530.
  • Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989b. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Kaplan, A., Coşkun Hepcan, Ç., 2004. “Ege Üniversitesi Kampüsü ‘Sevgi Yolu’nun Görsel (Etki) Değerlendirme Çalışması”, Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 41 (1):159-167, İzmir.
  • Kaplan, R., Kaplan S., Ryan R. L., 1998. With People in Mind. Island Press, s:239, USA.
  • Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. “The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective”, Cambridge University Press, New York.
  • Kaptanoğlu. A. Y. Ç., 2006. Peyzaj Değerlendirmesinde Görsel Canlandırma Tekniklerinin Kullanıcı Tercihine Etkileri. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı, Doktora Tezi. İstanbul.
  • Laurie, I., 1975. Aesthetic Factors in Visual Evaluation, Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resource. Dowden Hutchingon & Ross inc. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.
  • Leopold, L.B., 1969. Landscape Esthetics: How to Quantify the Scenics of A River Valley. In: Natural History, vol. 36-45, s. 454-467.
  • Lewis, P. 1966. Tomorrow by Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Linton, D.L., 1968. The Assessment of Scenery As A Natural Resource. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 84(3), 219-238.
  • Litton, R.B., Jr., 1968. Forest Landscape Description and Inventories. Berkeley, USDA, Forest Service, Pacific South West Forest and Range Experimental Station Research Paper PSW-49.
  • Litton, R.B., Jr., 1972. Aesthetic Dimensions of the Landscape. In: Krutilla, J.V. (Ed.), Natural Environments, Studies in Theoretical and Applied Analysis. Resources for the Future, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, s. 262-291.
  • Litton, R.B., Jr., 1982. Visual Assessment of Natural Landscapes. In: Sadler, B., Carlson, A. (Eds.), Environmental Aesthetics: Essays in Interpretation. Western Geographical Series, vol. 20, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, s. 95-115.
  • Martin, J., 1993. Assessing the landscape. Landscape Design, 222, 21-23.
  • Lothian, A., 1999. Landscape And The Philosophy Of Aesthetics: Is Landscape Quality Inherent In the Landscape or In the Eye of the Beholder. Landscape and Urban Planning, 44: 177-199.
  • Lynch, K., 1960. The Image of the City. The MIT Press, U.S.A.
  • McHarg, I., 1969. Design with Nature. The MIT Press, U.S.A.
  • Nasar, J., Julian, D., Buchman, S., Humphreys, D., Mrohaly, M., 1988. The emotional quality of scenes and observation points: a look at prospect and refuge. In: Nasar, J. (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York, s. 357–363.
  • Nicholls, D.C., Sclater, A., 1993. Cutting Quality Down to Scale. Landscape Design, 222, 39-41.
  • Özhancı, E., Yılmaz H., 2011. “Rekreasyon Alanlarının Görsel Peyzaj Kalitesi Yönünden Değerlendirilmesi; Erzurum Örneği”, Iğdır Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(2): 67-76.Palmer, J. F., & Hoffman, R. E., 2001. “Rating Reliability and Representation Validity in Scenic Landscape Assessments”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1-4): 149-161.
  • Palmer, J. F., 2003. Research Agenda for Landscape Perception. s: 163-172 Ed.: E. Buhmann, S. Ervin . Trends in Landscape Modeling. Heidelberg , Germany.
  • Parsons, R. & Daniel, T.C., 2002. Good Looking: in Defense of Scenic Landscape Aesthetics, Landscape and Urban Planning, 60: 43-56.
  • Polat, A.T., Güngör, S., Adıyaman, S., 2011. Konya Kenti Yakın Çevresindeki Kentsel Rekreasyon Alanlarının Görsel Kalitesi İle Kullanıcıların Demografik Özellikleri Arasındaki İlişkiler. I. Ulusal Akdeniz Orman ve Çevre Sempozyumu, Kahramanmaraş, 607-617.
  • Pouyaa, S., Behbahania, H. I., 2017. Assessment of The Visual Landscape Quality Based On The Subjectivist Paradigm to Design The Memorial Garden. Türkiye Ormancılık Dergisi, 18(3): 171-177.
  • Ramos, A.F., Ramos, P., Cifuentes, M., Fernandez-Canadas, 1976. Visual Landscape Evaluation, A Grid Technique. Landscape Planning, 3,67-88.
  • Sayın, G., 2011. Kentsel Yerleşim Alanlarında Peyzaj Kalitesini Artıracak Ölçütlerin Saptanması ve Dikmen Vadisi Örneğinde İncelenmesi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı (yüksek lisans tezi), Ankara.
  • Skřivanová, Z., Kalivoda, O., 2014. Consensus in Landscape Preference Judgments: The effects of Landscape Visual Aesthetic Quality and Respondents’ Characteristics. Journal of Environmental Management, 137, 36-44.
  • Smardon, R.C., J.F. Palmer & J.P. Felleman., 1988. Foundations for Visual Project Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, ISN 0471881848. 374 s. New York.
  • Schroeder, H.W., Daniel, T.C., 1980. Predicting The Scenic Quality of Forest Road Corridors. Environmental Behaviour, 12(3), 349-366.
  • Schroeder, H.W., Daniel, T.C., 1981. Progress in Predicting the Perceived Scenic Beauty of Forest Landscapes. Forest Science, 27(1), 71-80.
  • Schroeder, H.W., Brown, T.C., 1983. Alternative Functional Forms for an Inventory-based Landscape Perception Model. Journal Leisure Research, 15(2), 156-163.
  • Schroeder, H.W., 1984. Environmental Perception Rating Scales – A Case for Simple Methods of Analysis. Environmental Behaviour, 16(5), 573-598.
  • Schroeder, H.W., 1991. Preference and Meaning of Arboretum Landscapes: Combining Quantitative and Qualitative data. J. Environmental Psychology, 11, 231-248.
  • Temelli, M., 2008. Çukurova Üniversitesi Yerleşkesi Örneğinde Görsel Etki Değerlendirme Çalışmalarına Metodolojik Bir Yaklaşım (yüksek lisans tezi,basılmamış). Çukurova Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Adana. Tüfekçioğlu, K. H., 2008. Tarihsel Çevrede Görsel Peyzaj Kalite Değerlendirmesi Yedikule Örneği (yüksek lisans tezi, basılmamış). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Tveit, M., Ode, A., Fry, G., 2006. Key Concepts in A Frame For Analysing Visual Landscape Character, Landscape Research, 31: 229-255.
  • Urlich, R.S., 1977. Visual Landscape Preference: a Model and Application. Man-Environment Systems, 7, 279-293.
  • Urlich, R.S., 1979. Visual Landscapes and Psychological Wellbeing. Landscape Research, 4, 17-23.
  • Urlich, R.S., 1981. Natural vs. Urban Scenes - Some Psychological Effects. Environmental Behaviour, 135, 523-556.
  • Urlich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A., Zelson, M., 1991. Stress Recovery During Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments. J. Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230.
  • UK Countryside Commission, 1987. Landscape Assessment: a Countryside Commission Approach. CCD 128. Cheltenham.
  • Wang, R., Zhao. J., 2016. Demographic Groups’ Differences in Visual Preference for Vegetated Landscapes in Urban Green Space, Sustainable Cities and Society, 28 (2017): 350–357.
  • Wohlwill, J. F. 1983. The Concept of Nature: A Psychologist's View. Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research, 6, 5-37.
  • Wu, Y., Bishop, I., Hossain, H., Sposito, V., 2006. Using GIS in Landscape Visual Quality Assessment. Applied GIS, Monash University Epress.
  • Zhao, J., Luo, P., Wang, R., Cai, Y., 2013. ”Correlations Between Aesthetic Preferences of River and Landscape Characters”, Journal Of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 21(2): 123–132.
  • Zube, E.H., 1973. Rating Everyday Rural Landscapes of the Northeastern US. Landscape Architecture, 63(4), 370-375.
  • Zube, E.H., Anderson, T., Pitt, D., 1974. Measuring the Landscape: Perceptual Responses and Physical Dimensions. Landscape Research, News 1, 6.
  • Zube, E.H., Pitt, D.G., Anderson, T.W., 1975. Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the northeast. In: Zube, E.H., Brush, R.O., Fabos, J.G. (Eds.), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA, s. 151-167.
  • Zube, E.H., Mills, L.V., 1976. Cross-cultural explorations in landscape perception. In: Zube, E.H. (Eds.), Studies in Landscape Perception. Publication R-76-1, Institute for Man and Environment, University of Massachusetts, MA, s. 162-169.
  • Zube, E.H., Pitt, D.G., 1981. Cross-cultural Perceptions of Scenic and Heritage Landscapes. Landscape Planning, 8, 69-87.
  • Zube, E.H., Sell, G.L., Taylor, J.G., 1982. Landscape Perception: Research, Application and Theory. Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33.
  • Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., & Evans, G. W., 1983. A lifespan developmental study of landscape assessment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(2), 115–128.
There are 87 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Hande Özvan

Pınar Bostan

Publication Date March 29, 2019
Acceptance Date February 21, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 29 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Özvan, H., & Bostan, P. (2019). Çeşitli Yöntemlerin Karşılaştırılması ile Görsel Estetik Kalite Değerlendirilmesi. Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 29(1), 159-167. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.432802
Creative Commons License
Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Agricultural Sciences by Van Yuzuncu Yil University Faculty of Agriculture is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.