Visual landscape character of oriental spruce (Picea orientalis (L.) Link.) mountain forests in Turkey

Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 189-197

  Eroǧlu, Engin ^a   Acar, Cengiz ^a  

^a KARADENIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Forest planning and management; Oriental Spruce; Turkey; Visual landscape character

Indexed keywords

BLACK SEA; FOREST LANDSCAPE; FUNCTIONAL PLANNING; GEOMORPHOLOGIC UNITS; LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; MAIN STRUCTURE; MOUNTAIN FORESTS; ORIENTAL SPRUCE; PLANT SPECIES COMPOSITION; SLIDE SHOWS; TURKEY; VISUAL LANDSCAPE CHARACTER;

LANDFORMS; PLANTS (BOTANY); SEMANTICS;

FORESTRY;

ECOLOGY; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTS; GEOLOGY; MOUNTAINS; PICEA ORIENTALIS; SILVICULTURE; TURKEY;

PICEA; PICEA ORIENTALIS;

EID: 81355154566     PISSN: 16486897     EISSN: 18224199     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3846/16486897.2011.606173     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Acar, C. 1997. A Research on Using Facilities for Landscape Architecture of Some Indigenous Groundcover Plants Which grown in The Trabzon City and Its Environments: PhD Thesis. K.T.Ü. The Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Dept of Landscape Architecture.
2. Acar, C.; Akkaya, H.; Ayhan, N.; Eroglu, E. 2008. A Visual Assessment of Coastline Landscape Design in Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey: A Case Study of Vakfikebir. MARENPOL 2008. Trabzon. Türkiye. Abstarcat Book. 38 p.
3. Acar, C.; Demirbas, E.; Dinçer, P.; Acar, H. 2003. Evaluation of Semantic Differential Scale Technique for plant Composition Samples. S.D.Ü., Journal of Faculty of Forestry (1): 15-28. ISSN 1302-7085.
4. Acar, C.; Kurdoglu, B. Ç.; Kurdoglu, O.; Acar, H. 2006. Public preferences for visual quality and management in the Kackar Mountains National Park (Turkey), International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 13: 499-512.
5. Akkaya, H.; Ayhan, N.; Eroglu, E. 2008. A Visual Assessment of Coastline Landscape Design in Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey: A Case Study of Vakfikebir, in 6. National the Students of Faculty of Forestry Symposium in Düzce. 8-9 May, 2008.
6. Alkan, H.; Korkmaz, M.; Tolunay, A. 2009. Assessment of primary factors causing positive or negative local perceptions on protected areas, Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management 17(1): 20-27. doi:10.3846/1648-6897.2009.17.20-27
7. Ansin, R. 1979. Flora of Trabzon-Meryemana Research Forest and Researches on Pure Oriental Spruce Stands. Karadeniz Journalism and Printing A. S. Trabzon.
8. Ansin, R. 1980. Flora of East Black sea Region and Principal vegetation types and floristic content: Assoc. Prof. thesis Trabzon. Karadeniz Technical University (KTU), Faculty of Forestry.
9. Appleton, J. 1975. The experience of landscape. London: Wiley.
10. Arriaza, M.; Ortega, J. F. C.; Medueno, J. A. C.; Aviles, P. R. 2004. Assesing the Visula Quality of Rural Landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning 69(1): 115-125. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029 (Pubitemid 38448816)
11. Atalay, I. 2002. The formation of mountains in Turkey, their structural and ecological features. Mountains of Turkey, in l. National Symposium. 25-27 June, Ilgaz, 12-33.
12. Behbahani, H.; Haghighi, F. 2009. Presentation of land-use and traffic efficiency assessment, Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management 17(2): Ia-Ii.
13. Bell, S. 1993. Elements of Visual Design in the Landscape. London: E & FN Spon. doi:10.4324/9780203358146
14. Brown, T. C.; Daniel, T. C. 1990. Scaling of ratings: concepts and methods. Research Paper RM-293. Fort Collins, CO: US Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 22 p.
15. 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(1-2): 1-13. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00055-4 (Pubitemid 30300969)
16. Clay, G. R.; Smidt, R. K. 2004. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis, Landscape and Urban Planning 66(4): 239-255. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00114-2 (Pubitemid 38178866)
17. Daniel, T. C. 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century, Landscape and Urban Planning 25: 267-281. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00114-2 (Pubitemid 32608275)
18. Daniel, T. C.; Boster, R. S. 1976. 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. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4
19. Eroglu, E. 2004. Examining the seasonal variation of some plants and plants groups in Düzce city open and green areas on planting design perception: A.T.B.Ü. Master Thesis. DÜzce. The Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences Dept of Landscape Architecture.
20. Eroglu, E.; Kesim, G. K.; Müderrisoglu, H. 2005. Determination of Plants in Open and Green Areas in Düzce and Evaluation of These Plants According to Some Planting Design Principles, Journal of Agricultural Science 11(3): 270-277
21. Yaltirik, F. 1993. Dendroloji I. (Second Edition). İstanbul University, Faculty of Forestry Presses. No: 3443, O.F. No: 386. Tstanbul
22. Kalin, A. 2004. Determination and Improvement of Visual Quality in Environmental Preference and Evaluation: A Sample of Trabzon Coast Line: K.T.Ü. PhD Thesis. The Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Dept of Landscape Architecture. Trabzon.
23. Karadeniz, N.; Günes, G. 2002. Mountains Ecosystems and Sustainable Approaches. Mountains of Turkey, in l. National Symposium. 25-27 June, Ilgaz Monuntain, 24-30.
24. Knopf, R. C. 1987. Human behavior, cognition and effect in the natural environment, in Stokols, D. and Altman, I. (Eds.). Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: Wiley, 783-825.
25. Law, C. S; Zube, E. H. 1983. Effects of photographic composition on landscape perception, Landscape Research 8: 22-23. (Pubitemid 14263885)
26. Müderrisoglu, H.; Eroglu, E. 2006. Differences in Visual Perception of Some Coniferous Trees under Snow Load. S.D.Ü, Journal of Faculty of Forestry 1: 136-146. ISSN 1302-7085.
27. MÜderrisoglu, H.; Eroglu, E.; Ak, K.; Aydin, S. Ö. 2006. Visual Perception fo Tree Form, Building and Environment 41: 796-806. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.03.008 (Pubitemid 43141581)
28. Ode, A.; Fry, G.; Tveit, M. S.; Messager, P.; Miller, D. 2009. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference, Journal of Environmental Management 90(1): 375-383. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013
29. Real, E.; Arce, C.; Sabucedo, J. 2000. Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data, and prediction of their scenic beauty in North-Western Spain, Journal of Environmental Psychology 20: 355-373. doi:10.1006/jevp.2000.0184
30. Shafer, J. E. L.; Brush, R. O. 1977. How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes, Landscape Planning 4: 237-256. doi:10.1016/0304-3924(77)90027-2
31. Shuttleworth, S. 1980. The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies, Journal of Environmental Management 11: 61-76.
32. Stewart, T. R.; Middleton, P.; Downton, M.; Ely, D. 1984. Judgments of photographs vs. field observations in studies of perception and judgment of the visual environments, Journal of Environmental Psychology 4: 283-302. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(84)80001-8
33. Terzioglu, S. 1998. Flora and Vegetation of Uzungöl (TrabzonÇaykara) and Its near Environments. Trabzon. K.T.Ü. PhD Thesis. The Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Dept of Forest Engineering.
34. Ulrich, R. S. 1983. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment, in Altman, I. and Wohlwill, J. F. (Eds.). Behavior and the Natural Environment. New York: Plenum Press.