Public preferences for visual quality and management in the Kackar Mountains National Park (Turkey)

International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology

Volumn 13, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 499-512

  Acar, Cengiz ^a   Kurdoglu, Banu Cicek ^a   Kurdoglu, Oguz ^b   Acar, Habibe ^a  

^a KARADENIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b KAFKAS UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

National parks; Turkey; Visual landscape management; Visual quality

Indexed keywords

EID: 38849145893     PISSN: 13504509     EISSN: 17452627     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13504500609469699     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Acar C. Dag ekosistemlerinde görsel kalite ve görsel kaynak yönetimi-ekolojik ve görsel indikatörler. Kaçkar Daglari Milli Parki Çevre Egitimi. Ayder-Çamlihemsin, Rize; 2003
2. Akesen A. Milli park ve esdeger korunan alanlarin sürdürü lebilir yönetimi, politika ve ikeleri. Türkiye Daglari 1. Ulusal Sempozyumu, 25-27 Haziran, Ilgaz Dagi; 2002:31-7
3. Anonymous. Rize Ili'nin dogal kaynaklari. Ankara: MTA Genel Müdürlügü; 1998
4. Anonymous. Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlügü, Pazar ve Çamlihemsin Iklim Verileri. Ankara: T.C. Basbakanlik Devlet Meteoroloji Isleri Genel Müdürlügü; 2002
5. Anonymous. www.milliparklar.gov.tr: Çevre ve Orman Bakanligi, Doga Koruma ve Milli Parklar Genel Müdürlügü; 2005
6. Appleton J. The experience of landscape. London: Wiley; 1975
7. Atalay I. Türkiyedeki daglarin olusumu, yapisal ve ekolojik özellikleri. Türkiye Daglari 1. Ulusal Sempozyumu. 25-27 Haziran, Ilgaz Dagi; 2002: 12-33
8. Arriaza M, Canas-Ortega JF, Canas-Madueno JA and Ruiz-Aviles P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004; 69(1):115-25 (Pubitemid 38448816)
9. Bell S. Elements of Visual Design in the Landscape. London: E & FN Spon; 1993
10. BrownTCand Daniel TC. Scaling of ratings: concepts and methods. Research Paper RM-293. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1990: 22pp.
11. Buhyoff GJ, Miller PA, Roach JW, Zhou D and Fuller LG. An AI methodology for landscape visual assessments. AI Applications 1994:8(1):1-13
12. Buhyoff GJ and Miller PA. Context reliability and internal validity of an expert system to assess landscape visual values. AI Applications 1998:12(1-3): 76-82
13. Clay GR and Daniel TC. Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning 2000:49(1-2):1-13 (Pubitemid 30300969)
14. Clay GR and Smidt RK. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004: 66(4):239-55 (Pubitemid 38178866)
15. Daniel TC. Whither scenic beauty? visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001:25:267-81 (Pubitemid 32608275)
16. Daniel TC and Boster RS. Measuring Landscape Aesthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO: 1976
17. Daniel TC and Vining J. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In Altman I and Wohlwill F (eds), Behavior and the Natural Environment. New York: Plenum Press; 1983
18. Dearden P. Philosophy, theory and method in landscape evaluation. Canadian Geography 1985;29: 263-5
19. Demirel O. Doga Koruma ve Milli Parklar. Trabzon: KTU Matbaasi; 2005
20. Guclu K and Karahan F. A review: the history of conservation programs and development of the national parks concept in Turkey. Biodiversity and Conservation 2004;13(7):1373-90 (Pubitemid 38537008)
21. Gulez S. Trabzon-Meryemana ve Yöresinin Ulusal ve Uluslararasi Ulusal Park Ölçütlerinde Incelenmesi Üzerine Arastirmalar. Trabzon: Karadeniz Teknik Üni. Peyzaj Mim. Bilim Dali; 1984
22. Gulez S. A method for evaluating areas for national park status. Environmental Management 1992;16(6): 811-18 (Pubitemid 23081359)
23. Gurpinar T. Kus Göçü Açisindan Türkiye'nin Önemi. Istanbul:Türkiye ve Balkan Ülkelerinde Yaban Hayati Uluslararasi Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabi; 1987:16-20
24. Haider W and Hunt L. Visual aesthetic quality of northern Ontario's forested shorelines. Environmental Management 2002;29(3):324-34 (Pubitemid 36927615)
25. Hepcan S and Coskun C. A naturalness quality assessment; in the case of Spil mountain, Turkey. Journal of Applied Sciences 2004;4(1):164-70
26. Hull RB and Stewart WP. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgements. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1992;12:101-14
27. IUCN. Guidelines for Protected Areas Management Categories. Cambridge: IUCN. 1994:261 pp.
28. Kaplan S and Kaplan R. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989
29. Kaplan R, Kaplan S and Brown T. Environmental preference: a comparison of four domains of predictors. Environmental Behavior 1989;21:509-30
30. Karadeniz N and Günes G. Dag ekosistemleri ve sürdürü lebilir yaklasimlar. Türkiye Daglari 1. Ulusal Sempozyumu. 25-27 Haziran, Ilgaz Dagi; 2002: 24-30
31. Karjalainen E and Komulainen M. The visual effect of felling on small-and medium-scale landscapes in north-eastern Finland. Journal of Environmental Management 1999;55(3):167-81 (Pubitemid 29346659)
32. Kaya Z and Raynal DJ. Biodiversity and conservation of Turkish forests. Biological Conservation 2001;97(2): 131-41 (Pubitemid 32062510)
33. Kent RL. Determining scenic quality along highways: a cognitive approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 1993;27(1):29-45
34. Knopf RC. Human behavior, cognition and effect in the natural environment. In Stokols D and Altman I (eds), Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: Wiley; 1987:783-825
35. Kurdoglu O. Kaçkar daglari milli parki ve yakin çevresinin dogal kaynak yönetimi açisindan incelenmesi. Trabzon: KTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Orman Mühendisligi Ana Bilim Dali Doktora Tezi; 2002
36. Law CS and Zube EH. Effects of photographic composition on landscape perception. Landscape Research 1983;8:22-3 (Pubitemid 14263885)
37. Litton BR. Visual assessment of natural landscapes. In Sadler B and Carlson A (eds), Environmental Aesthetics: Essays in Interpretation. Victoria, BC: Western Geographical Series; 1982:vol. 20
38. Otahel J. Visual quality of the landscape: Approaches to analysis, Ekologia Bratislava 2003;22 (Suppl. 2):150-60
39. Ozbilen A. Meryemana (Sümela) kirsal yöresinde, çevre tasarimi için kullaniciya referans olan yapay-dogal imgelem ögelerin arastirilmasi. Doktora Tezi: KTÜ Mimarlik Bölümü; 1983
40. Paquet J and Belanger L. Public acceptability thresholds of clearcutting to maintain visual quality of boreal balsam fir landscapes. Forest Science 1997; 43(1):46-55 (Pubitemid 27118983)
41. Pavlikakis GE and Tsihrintzis VA. Ecosystem management: a holistic approach to the management of the natural resources. In Brebbia CA and Uso JL (eds), Ecosystems and Sustainable Development II. Proceedings of the International Conference ECOSUD, Lemnos, Greece: WIT Press; 1999: 385-94
42. Purcell AT. Abstract and specific physical attributes and the experience of landscape. Journal of Environmental Management 1992;34;159-77
43. Real E, Arce C and Sabucedo J. Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data, and prediction of their scenic beauty in North-Western Spain. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2000; 20:355-73
44. Ribe RG. A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in northern hardwood forests. Landscape Journal 1990;9(2):86-101
45. Schroeder HW and Daniel TC. Predicting the scenic quality of forest road corridors. Environment and Behavior 1980;12:349-66
46. Shafer Jr EL and Brush RO. How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes. Landscape Planning 1977;4:237-56
47. Shuttleworth S. The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management 1980;11:61-76
48. Silvennoinen H, Alho J, Kolehmainen O and Pukkala T. Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest stand level. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001;56(1-2):11-20 (Pubitemid 32812149)
49. Silvennoinen H, Pukkala T and Tahvanainen L. Effect of cuttings on the scenic beauty of a tree stand. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 2002;17: 263-73 (Pubitemid 34657463)
50. Stewart TR, Middleton P, DowntonMand Ely D. Judgments of photographs vs. field observations in studies of perception and judgment of the visual environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1984;4:283-302
51. Ulrich RS. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In Altman I and Wohlwill JF (eds), Behavior and the Natural Environment. New York: Plenum Press; 1983
52. Tuysuz N and Akcay M. Dogu Karadeniz Bölgesindeki Altin Yataklarinin Karsilastirmali Incelemesi. Cumhuriyetin 75. Yýldönümü Yerbilimleri ve Madencilik Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabi Cilt II. Ankara: MTA Genel Müdürlügü; 2000:625-45
53. Zube EH, Sell JL and Taylor JG. Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape Planning 1982;9:1-33