Orman yollarının görsel peyzaj değerlendirmesi: 'Kafkasör Mersivan rotası (Artvin) örneği'

Year 2017, Volume: 17 Issue: 3, 404 - 413, 27.11.2017

Banu Karaşah

https://doi.org/10.17475/kastorman.285686

Cited By: 3

Abstract

Özet

Çalışmanın amacı: İnsan
ile doğa arasındaki ilişkilerin kurulmasında etkili peyzaj elemanları olan
yolların; içinden geçtikleri peyzajı parçalara ayırma potansiyeli mevcuttur.
Orman yolları; temel fonksiyonlarının yanı sıra seyahat edenlerin belleğinde
farklı deneyimler bırakan görsel işlevlere de sahip koridorlardır. Bu
koridorların görsel peyzaj değerlendirmesinin yapılması ve bu doğrultuda doğru
bir şekilde planlanması gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmada da  bir orman yolunun görsel peyzaj değerinin
ortaya konulması amaçlanmıştır.

Çalışma alanı: Çalışma
iki farklı rekreasyon alanını birbirine bağlayan Kafkasör- Mersivan (Artvin)
mevkii arasındaki orman yolu güzergâhı boyunca yürütülmüştür.

Materyal ve
Yöntem: Bu güzergâhın
görsel değerlendirmesinde fotoğraf temelli anket çalışması, yol güzergâhını
kullanan farklı kullanıcı gruplarından oluşan (halk, orman mühendisleri, peyzaj
mimarlarına) 230 kişiye uygulanmıştır.

Sonuçlar: Sonuçlarda bu
rotanın bölgede önemli bir görsel değere sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Çalışma
sonucunda elde edilen verilerin orman yolu planlama sürecinde değerlendirmesine
ilişkin önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Araştırma
vurgular: Orman
yolu planlama sürecinde görsel değere sahip rotaların belirlenmesi ve görsel
değerlendirme sürecine halkın katılımının sağlanması bu ekosistemlerin
korunmasına ve sürdürülebilirliğine katkıda sağlaması açısından faydalı
olacaktır.

Keywords

Görsel peyzaj, Görsel kalite, Vistalar, Orman yolları, Artvin

A Visual Landscape Assessment of Forest Roads: ‘Case of Kafkasör-Mersivan Route, Artvin’

Abstract

Abstract

Aim of study: Roads, which are the
effective landscape elements in relationship between people and nature,
potentially divide the landscape into pieces. Forest roads are corridors which
have visual functions that impress travellers’ memory with different
experiences as well as their basic functions. Visual landscape assessment of
these corridors is required and they need to be planned accordingly. Also in
this study, it was aimed to reveal the visual landscape value of a forest road.

Area of study: This study was carried out
on Kafkasör-Mersivan route which linked two different recreational areas in
Artvin.

Material and Methods: In visual landscape
assessment of this route, a photo-based questionnaire was conducted with 230
people who knew the route, consisted of different user groups (public, forest
engineers and landscape architectures).

Main results: Results showed that this route has an important visual value in the region. Some suggestions
were provided about assessing the data obtained from the study in forest road
planning.

Research highlights: Determining
the routes which have visual value in forest road planning process and ensuring
public participation in visual assessment process will be useful to contribute
protection and sustainability of these ecosystems.

Keywords

Visual landscape, Visual quality, Vistas, Forest roads

References

• Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega, J.F., Cañas-Madueño, J.A., Ruiz-Aviles, P., 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 115–125.
• Barrosa, F.L., Pinto-Correia, T., Ramos, I.L., Surova, D., Menezes, H. 2012. Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies: Photo-based questionnaires in the Mediterranean context. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104, 329-342.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., 2005. Anket geliştirme. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2),1-19.
• Chen, B., Adimo, O.A., Bao, Z. 2009. Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban green space from the users’ perspective: The case of Hangzhou Flower Garden, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 93(1), 76-82.
• Chiang, Y-C., Nasarb, J.L., Ko, C-C. 2014. Influence of visibility and situational threats on forest trail evaluations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 166-173.
• Daniel, T.C., 2001. Whither scenic beauty?Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 267-281.
• de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7, 260–272.
• de Vries, S., de Groot, M., Boers, J. 2012. Eyesores in sight: Quantifying the impact of man-made elements on the scenic beauty Dutch landscapes. Landscape Urban and Planning, 105, 118-127.
• Dupont, L., Antrop, M., Van Eetvelde, V. 2015. Does landscape related expertise influence the visual perception of landscape photographs? Implications for participatory landscape planning and management, Landscape and Urban Planning, 141, 68–77.
• Eriksson, L., Nordlund, A. 2013. How is setting preference related to intention to engage in forest recreation activities? Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 12, 481–489.
• Filova, L., Vojar, J., Svobodova, K., Sklenicka, P. 2015. The effect of landscape type and landscape elements on public visual preferences: ways to use knowledge in the context of landscape planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58 (11), 2037-2055.
• Golivets, M., 2011. Aesthetic values of forest landscapes. Master Dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
• Grêt-Regamey, A., Bishop, I.D., Bebi P. 2007. Predicting the scenic beauty value of mapped landscape changes in a mountainous region through the use of GIS. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34, 50–67.
• Hansson, K., Külvik, M., Bell, S., Maikov, K. 2012. A preliminary assessment of preference for Estonian natural forests. Baltic Forestry, 18(2), 299-315.
• Hartig, T., Evans, G.W., Jamner, L.D., Davis, D.S., Gärling, T. 2003. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (2), 109–123.
• Hasdemir, M., Demir, M. 2000. Türkiye'de orman yollarını karayollarından ayıran özellikler ve bu yolların sınıflandırılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 50 (2), 85-96.
• Hofmann, M., Westermann, J.R., Kowarik, I., van der Meer, E. 2012. Perceptions of parks and urban derelict land by landscape planners and residents. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 11, 303-312.
• Howley, P., Donoghue, C.O., Hynes, S. 2012. Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104, 66-74.
• Jiang, B., Larsen, L., Deal, B., Sullivan, W.C. 2015. A dose–response curve describing the relationship between tree cover density and landscape preference. Landscape and Urban Planning, 139, 16–25.
• Kalıpsız, A., 1981. İstatistik yöntemler. İÜ Orman Fakültesi, Yayın No: 2837, OF Yayın No:294, İstanbul.
• Kalivoda, O., Vojar, J., Skřivanová, Z., Zahradník, D. 2014. Consensus in landscape preference judgments: The effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents' characteristics. Journal of Environmental Management, 137, 36–44.
• Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York.
• Karaşah, B., 2014. Botanik bahçelerinde görsel peyzaj tercihlerinin değerlendirilmesi: Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi (İstanbul) ve Kraliyet Botanik Bahçesi (Edinburgh) örnekleri. Doktora Tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 182s, Trabzon.
• Karjalainen, E. 2006. The visual preferences for forest regeneration and field afforestation - four case studies in Finland. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Biosciences, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences.
• Kearney, A.R., Gordon A. Bradley, G.A. 2011. The effects of viewer attributes on preference for forest scenes: Contributions of attitudes, knowledge, demographic factors and stakeholder group membership. Environment and Behavior, 43 (2), 147-181.
• Massoni, E.S., Varga, D., Sáez, M., Pintó, J. 2016. Exploring aesthetic preferences in rural landscapes and the relationship with spatial pattern indices. Journal of Landscape Ecology, 9(1), 5-21.
• Nilsson, K., Sangster, M., Gallis, C., Hartig, T., de Vries, S., Seeland, K., Schipperijn, J. (Editors). 2011. Forests, Trees and Human Health. 452 pp. Springer, Berlin.
• Othman, J., 2011. Scenic beauty preferences of Cameron highlands Malaysia: Local versus foreign tourist. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2 (6), 248-251.
• Özkan, U.Y., Özdemir, I. 2015. Assessment of landscape silhouette value in urban forests based on structural diversity indices. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 12 (12), 3971–3980.
• Ryan, R.M., Weinstein, N., Bernstein, J., Brown, K.W., Mistretta, L., Gagné, M. 2010. Vitalizing effects of being outdoors and in natüre. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 159–168.
• Schirpke, U., Tasser, E., Tappeiner, U. 2013. Predicting scenic beauty of mountain regions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 111, 1– 12.
• Roth, M., 2006. Validating the use of Internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment: An empirical study from Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 179–192.
• Scott, A.J., Moore-Colyer, R. 2005. From elitism to inclusivity: Temporal change in public participation and perception of landscape. Landscape Research, 30, 501–523.
• Sklenicka, P., Molnarova, K. 2010. Visual perception of habitats adopted for post-mining landscape rehabilitation. Environmental Management, 46, 424-435.
• Staats, H., T. Hartig, T. 2004. Alone or with a friend: A social context for psychological restoration and environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24 (2), 199–211.
• Storea, R., Karjalainen, E., Haara, A., Leskinen, P., Nivala, V. 2015. Producing a sensitivity assessment method for visual forest landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 144, 128–141.
• Thomas, R.M., 1998. Conducting educational research: A comparative view. West Port, Conn: Bergin & Garvey.
• Tveit, M.S. 2009. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. Journal of Environmental Management, 90 (9), 2882–2888.
• Tyrväinen L., Silvennoinen H., Kolehmainen O. 2005. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 1(3), 135–149.