Determining visual beauties of natural waterscapes: A case study for tortum valley (Erzurum/Turkey)

Scientific Research and Essays

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 170-182

  Bulut, Zöhre ^a   Karahan, Faris ^b   Sezen, Işik ^b  

^a ADNAN MENDERES UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b ATATÜRK UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Tortum; Turkey; Valley waterscapes; Visual quality assessment; Waterscape diversity

Indexed keywords

EID: 75949088047     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19922248     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Acar C, Kurdoǧlu B, Kurdoǧlu O, Acar H (2006). Public preferences for visual quality and management in Kaçkar Mountains National Park (Turkey), Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 13(6): 499-512
2. Acar C, Kurdoǧlu BÇ (2005). Visual Quality Evaluation in Kaçkar Mountains: Sum on Protected Natural Areas, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey.
3. Acar C, Sakici Ç (2008). Assessing landscape perception of urban rocky habitats, Building Environ. 43(6): 1153-1170.
4. Arriaza M, Canas-Ortega JF, Canas-Madueno JA, Ruiz-Aviles P (2004). Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 115-125.
5. Bergen SD, Ulbricht CA, Fridley JL, Ganter MA (1995). The validity of computer generated graphic images of forest landscapes, J. Environ. Psychol. 15: 135-146.
6. Bienabe E, Hearne RR (2006). Public preferences for biodiversity Bulut Z, Sezen I, Karahan F (2010). Determination of spring visual ceremonies of urban fruit trees and shrubs: A case study from Erzurum/Turkey. Int. J. Food Agric. Environ. 8(1): 132-139.
7. Bulut Z (2006). The Evaluation of Recreational Tourism Potential of Kemaliye (Erzincan) and Nearby within an Alternative Tourism Framework, Ataturk Univ. Natural and Applied Sciences Institution, Landscape Architecture Dept. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis), Erzurum.
8. Bulut Z, Yilmaz H (2007). Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality assessment method: A case study for Kemaliye (Erzincan/Turkey), Environ. Monit. Assess. 141(1-3): 121-129.
9. Bulut Z, Yilmaz H (2008). Determination of waterscape beauties through visual quality assessment method, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. In Press.
10. Chin A, Daniels MD, Urban MA, Piegay H, Gregory KJ, Bigler W, Butt AZ, Grable JL, Gregory SV, Lafrenz M, Laurencio LR, Wohl E (2008). Perceptions of Wood in Rivers and Challenges for StreamRestoration in the United States. Environ. Manage. 41: 893-903.
11. Clay GR, Smidt RK (2004). Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Plan. 66(4): 239-255.
12. Daniel TC (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21 st century, Landsc. Urban Plan. 54(1-4): 267-281.
13. Hammitt WE, Patterson ME, Noe FP (1994). Identifying and predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas, Landsc. Urban Plan. 29(2-39): 171-183.
14. Hands DE, Brown RD (2002). Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites, Landsc. Urban Plan. 58(1): 57-70.
15. Herzog TR (1985). A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes, J. Environ. Psychol. 5(3): 225-241.
16. Herzog TR, Barnes GJ (1999). Tranquility and preference revisited, J. Environ. Psychol. 19(2): 171-181.
17. Kaltenborn BP, Bjerke T (2002). Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences, Landsc. Urban Plan. 59: 1-11.
18. Kane PS (1981). Assessing landscape attractiveness: A comparative test of two new method, Appl. Geo. 1: 77-96.
19. Kaplan A, Taşkin T, Önenç A (2006). Assessing the visual quality of rural and urban-fringed landscapes surrounding livestock farms, Biosyst. Eng. 95(3): 437-448.
20. Karahan F (2003). Erzurum-Rize Karayolu Koridoru Peyzaj Planlamasi{dotless} ve Manzara Yolu Olarak Kullani{dotless}ma Sunulma Olanaklari{dotless}, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarli{dotless} i{dotless} Anabilim Dali{dotless}, Erzurum
21. Karahan F, Yilmaz H (2004). Erzurum-Rize Karayolu Koridorunda Görsel Kalite Analizi, Peyzaj Mimarli{dotless} i{dotless} 2. Kongresi, Ankara.
22. Karahan F, Yilmaz H (2008). Türkiye'de Manzara Yolu Yakla_i{dotless}mlari{dotless}na Özel Bir Örnek: Erzurum-Rize Karayolu Koridoru, _spir-Pazaryolu Tarih, Kültür ve Ekonomi Sempozyumu, _spir.
23. Krause CL (2001). Our visual landscape: Managing the landscape under special consideration of visual aspects. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54(1-2): 239-254.
24. Lindborg R, Bengtsson J, Berg Å, Cousins SAO, Eriksson O, Gustafsson T, Pelegrini S (2008). World Heritage Sites, Types and Laws, Encyclopedia of Archaeology.
25. McGarigal K, McComb WC (1995). Reletionships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon Coast Range, Ecol. Monogr. 65(3): 235-260.
26. Meitner MJ (2004). Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon: Relating perceptual judgments to location, Landsc. Urban Plan. 68: 3-13.
27. Misgav A (2000). Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel, Landsc. Urban Plan. 48: 143-159.
28. Mutz M, Piegay H, Gregory KJ, Borchardt D, Reich M, Schmieder K (2006). Perception and evaluation of dead wood in streams and rivers by German students. Limnol. - Ecol. Manage. Inland Waters 36(2): 110-118.
29. Piegay H, Gregory K J, Bondarev V, Chin A, Dahlstrom N, Elosegi A, Gregory S V, Joshi V, Mutz M, Rinaldi M, Wyzga B, Zawiejska J (2005). Public Perception as a Barrier to Introducing Wood in Rivers for Restoration Purposes. Environ. Manage. 36(5): 665-674.
30. Ribe RG (2006). Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in vista views: The interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape, Landsc. Urban Plan. 73(4): 277-293.
31. Ribe RG (2006). Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest: Information effects and acceptability distribution analysis, J. Environ. Psychol. 26(2): 100-115.
32. Rocchini D, Perry GLW, Salerno M, Maccherini S, Chiarucci A (2006). Landscape change and the dynamics of open formations in a natural reserve, Landsc. Urban Plan. 77(1-2): 167-177.
33. Sheppard S, Picard P (2005). Visual-quality impacts of forest pest activity at the landscape level: A synthesis of published knowledge and research needs, Landsc. Urban Plan. 77(4): 321-342.
34. Sullivan WC, Lovell ST (2006). Improving the visual quality of commercial development at the rural-urban fringe, Landsc. Urban Plan. 77(1-2): 152-166.
35. Tahvanainen L, Ihalainen M, Hietala-Koivu R, Kolehmainen O, Tyrväinen L, Nousiainen O, Helenius J (2002). Measures of the EU agri-environmental protection scheme (GAEPS) and their impacts on the visual acceptability of Finnish agricultural landscapes. J. Environ. Manage. 66: 213-227.
36. Tzolova GV (1995). An experiment in greenway analysis and assesment: The Dani{dotless}be River, Landsc. Urban Plan. 33(1-3): 283-294.
37. Ulrich RS (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes, Landsc. Urban Plan. 13: 29-44.
38. Velarde MD, Fry G, Tveit M (2007). Health effects of viewing landscapes-Landscape types in environmental psychology, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 6(4): 199-212.
39. Wilson MI, Robertson LD, Daly M, Walton SA (1995). Effects of visual cues on assessment of water quality, J. Environ. Psychol. 15(1): 53-63.
40. Yu K (1995). Cultural variations in landscape preference: Comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and western design experts, Landsc. Urban Plan. 32(2): 107-126.