1
Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Mimarlık ve Tasarım Fakültesi, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Bölümü, Pamukkale
2
Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Güzel Sanatlar Fakültesi Peyzaj Mimarlığı Bölümü, Kırıkkale
3
Türkiye Milli Botanik Bahçesi Müdürlüğü, Ankara
Abstract
In the planning and management of rural landscapes, it is necessary to evaluate the visual landscape quality together with the evaluation of natural and cultural components with a holistic approach by considering all different characteristics and their relationships in space and time. The aim of the study is to evaluate the visual landscape quality by using visual indicators determined based on ecological and aesthetic common ground in Gölbaşı district, one of the central districts of Ankara province, where there is urbanization pressure and rural areas are dense. In this context, the visual quality of the area was determined by using the 2018 CORINE LC/LU Data and the visual consept of complexity, naturalness, disturbance and coherence. To spatially determine the landscape level analysis, the area was divided into regions. According to the results, as human impact increases (urbanization, mining areas, etc.), visual quality decreases (regions 6, 7 and 9), while visual quality increases as human impact decreases. When evaluated with this approach, suggestions have been developed in the Gölbaşı example to emphasize rural identities through indicators and to plan land uses according to this unique value.
Keywords
Visual quality,visual indicator,Gölbaşı,Ankara
How to Cite
DOĞAN, D., BİNGÜL BULUT, M. B., & YILMAZ, M. (2023). Visual Quality Assessment of Rural Landscapes: The Case of Gölbaşı, Ankara. MAS Journal of Applied Sciences, 8(Özel Sayı), 924–937. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10003558
📄Angileri, V., Toccolini, A., 1993. The assessment of visual quality as a tool for the conservation of rural landscape diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 24 (1–4): 105-112.
📄Anonim, 2023e. Çevre Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı (https://ockb.csb .gov.tr/golbasi-ozel-cevre-koruma-bolgesi-i-2750), Erişim tarihi: (28.05.2023).
📄Anonim, 2023f. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (https://www.tuik.gov.tr/indir/duy uru/favori_raporlar.xlsx), Erişim tarihi: (28.05.2023).
📄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.
📄Daniel, T.C., 2001. Whither scenic beauty? visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1-4): 267-281.
📄de la Fuente de Val, G., Atauri, J.A. ,de Lucio, J.V., 2006. Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: a test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning, 77: 393- 407.
📄Doğan, D., 2016. Peyzaj bağlantılılığının saptanması ve değerlendirilmesi: Malatya kenti ve yakın çevresi örneği. Doktora Tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
📄Doğan, D., Bingül Bulut, M.B., 2022. Visual landscape studies: A systematic literature review. (Ed: M. Özyavuz) Sustainability,
📄Conservation and Ecology in Spatial Planning and Design. New approaches, solutions, applications, Peter Lang GmbH. Berlin. s.845-862.
📄Dramstad, W.E., Sundli Tveit, M., Fjellstad, W.J., Fry, G.L.A., 2006. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape Urban Planning, 78 (4):465–474.
📄Foltete, J.C., Ingensand, J., Blanc, N., 2020. Coupling crowdsourced imagery and visibility modelling to identify landscape preferences at the panorama level. Landscape and Urban Planning, 197: 103756.
📄Fry, G., Tveit M. S., Ode, A., Velarde, M. D., 2009.The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological çlandscape indicators. Ecological Indicators, 9(2009): 933–947.
📄He, H., Dezonia, B., Mladenoff, D., 2000. An Aggregation Index (AI) to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 15:591-601.
📄Joly, D., Brossard, T., Cavailhes, J., Hilal, M., Tourneux, F. P., Tritz, C., Wavresky, P., 2009. A quantitative approach to the visual evaluation of landscape. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 99 (2): 292–308.
📄Kellert, S. R., Wilson, E. O., 1993. The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press/Shearwater Books.
📄Kerebel, A., Gélinas, N. Déry, S., Voigt, B., Munson, A., 2019. Landscape aesthetic modelling using Bayesian networks: conceptual framework and participatory indicator weighting. Landscape and Urban Planning, 185: 258-271.
📄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.
📄Martin, B., Ortega, E., Otero, I., Arce R. M., 2016. Landscape character assessment with GIS using map-based indicators and photographs in the relationship between landscape and roads. Journal of Environmental Management, 180: 324-334.
📄McGarigal, K., Cushman S.A., Ene, E., 2012. FRAGSTATS v4: Spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and continuous maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available at the following web site: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
📄McHarg, I., 1969, Design with nature, Natural History Press, New York, NY.
📄Nassauer. J.I., 1988. Landscape care: perceptions of local people in landscape ecology and sustainable development. In: Landscape/Land Use Planning. Proceedings of the 1988 Annual Meeting. American Society of Landscape Architects. Seattle, s. 27-41.
📄Ode Å., Mari S. Tveit, Fry G., 2008. Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: touching base with landscape aesthetic theory, Landscape Research, 33(1): 89-117.
📄Otero Pastor, I., Casermeiro Martínez, M. A., Ezquerra Canalejoa, A., Esparcia Marino, P., 2007. Landscape evaluation: comparison of evaluation methods in a region of Spain. Journal of Environmental Management, 85(1): 204–214.
📄Özhancı, E., 2014. Kırsal alanlarda ekolojik temelli görsel peyzaj karakter analizi; Bayburt örneği. Doktora tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
📄Özvan, H., Bostan, P., 2019. Çeşitli yöntemlerin karşılaştırılması ile görsel estetik kalite değerlendirilmesi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 291:159-167.
📄Pinto-Correia, T., Primdahl, J., Pedroli, B., 2018. What is the rural landscape about? In european landscapes in transition: Implications for policy and practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge s. 42-63.
📄Sang, N., Miller, D., Ode, Å., 2008. Landscape metrics and visual topology in the analysis of landscape preference. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35(3): 504–520.
📄Saura S., 2004. Effects of remote sensor spatial resolution and data aggregation on selected fragmentation indices, Landscape Ecology, 19: 197–209.
📄Şahin, Ş., Perçin, H., Kurum, E., Uzun, O., Bilgili, B.C., Tezcan, L., Çiçek, İ., Müftüoğlu, V., Çorbacı, Ö.L., Sütünç, S., Doğan, D., Koç, Ö., Ateş, E., Tarım, B., Kurdoğlu, G., Kaşko, Y., 2013. PEYZAJ-44: İl ölçeğinde peyzaj karakter analizi ve turizm/Rekreasyon açısından değerlendirilmesi. 109G074 Nolu TÜBİTAK KAMAG Projesi Raporu.
📄Tagliafierro C., Longo A., Van Eetvelde V., Antrop M., Hutchinson W. G., 2013. Landscape economic valuation by integrating landscape ecology into landscape economics. Environmental Science & Policy, 32: 26-36.
📄Taylor, P. D., 2002. Fragmentation and cultural landscapes: tightening the relationship between human beings and the environment, Landscape and Urban Planning, 58: 93-99.
📄Tveit, M., Ode A., Fry G., 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscpe Research, 31(3): 229-255.
📄Van Mansvelt, J. D., Kuiper, J., 1999. Criteria for the humanity realm: psychology and physiognomy and cultural heritage, (Ed. J. D. van Mansvelt, M. J. van der Lubbe), Checklist for Sustainable Landscape Management, s. 116-134
📄Vouligny, E., Domon, G., Ruiz, J., 2009. An assessment of ordinary landscapes by an expert and by its residents: landscape values in areas of intensive agricultural use. Land Use Policy. 26 (4): 890-900.
📄Yılmaz M., 2021. Kırsal alanların peyzaj ekonomisi bağlamında değerlemesi: Ankara- Nallıhan ilçesi örneği. Doktora Tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
,
Meryem Bihter BİNGÜL BULUT
2