Landscape values of rocky habitats in urban and semi-urban context of Turkey: A study of Tokat city

Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 1200-1211

  Acar, Habibe ^a   Eroǧlu, Engin ^b   Acar, Cengiz ^a  

^a KARADENIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b DUZCE UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Landscape value assessment; Tokat; Turkey; Urban rocky habitats; Visual preferences

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ESTHETICS; HABITAT; HABITAT QUALITY; HUMAN; LANDSCAPE; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; LANDSCAPING; PERCEPTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; ROCK; TURKEY (REPUBLIC); URBAN AREA; VEGETATION;

EID: 84880309443     PISSN: 14590255     EISSN: 14590263     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Gómez, F., Jabaloyes, J., Montero, L., De Vicente, V. and Valcuende, M. 2011. Green areas, the most significant indicator of the sustainability of cities: Research on their utility for urban planning. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 137:311-328.
2. United Nations 2010. World Urbanization Prospects, the 2009 Revision: Highlights. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York, 45 p.
3. Vandermeulen, V., Verspecht, A., Vermeire, B., Van Huylenbroeck, G., and Gellynck, X. 2011. The use of economic valuation to create public support for green infrastructure investments in urban areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 103(2):198-206.
4. Acar, C. and Saki{dotless}ci{dotless}, C. 2008. Assessing landscape perception of urban rocky habitats. Building and Environment 43:1153-1170.
5. Faggi, A. and Ignatieva, M. 2009. Urban green spaces in Buenos Aires and Christchurch. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Municipal Engineers 162(4)241-250.
6. Özgüner, H. and Kendle, A. D. 2006. Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK). Landscape and Urban Planning 74:139-157.
7. Arnberger, A. 2006. Recreation use of urban forests: An inter-area comparison. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4:135-144.
8. Cohen, D. A., McKenzie, T. L., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D. and Lurie, N. 2007. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. American Journal of Public Health 97:509-514.
9. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kazmierczak, A., Niemela, J. and James, P. 2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning 81(3):167-178.
10. Hamada, S. and Ohta, T. 2010. Seasonal variations in the cooling effect of urban green areas on surrounding urban areas. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9:15-24.
11. Escobedo, F. J., Kroeger, T. and Wagner, J. E. 2011. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution 159:2078-2087.
12. Gabriel, K. M. A. and Endlicher, W. R. 2011. Urban and rural mortality rates during heat waves in Berlin and Brandenburg, Germany. Environmental Pollution 159:2044-2050.
13. Hofmann, M., Westermann, J. R., Kowarik, I. and van der Meer, E. 2012. Perceptions of parks and urban derelict land by landscape planners and residents. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11(3):303-312.
14. Barbosa, O., Tratalos, J. A., Armsworth, P. R., Davies, R. G., Fuller, R. A., Johnson, P. and Gaston, K. J. 2007. Who benefits from access to green space? A case study from Sheffield, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning 83(2-3):187-195.
15. Matsuoka, R. H. and Kaplan, R. 2008. People needs in the urban landscape: analysis of Landscape and Urban Planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning 84:7-19.
16. Bulut, Z. and Yilmaz, H. 2008. Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality assessment method: A case study for Kemaliye. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 141(1-3):121-129.
17. Ode, Å. and Miller, D. 2011. Analysing the relationship between indicators of landscape complexity and preference. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 38(1):24-40.
18. Ode, Å., Hagerhall, Caroline M. and Neil, S. 2010. Analyzing visual landscape complexity: Theory and application. Landscape Research 35(1):111-131.
19. Pinto-Correia, T., Barroso, F., Surova, D. and Menezes, H. 2011. The fuzziness of Montado landscapes: Progress in assessing user preferences through photo-based surveys. Agroforestry Systems 82:209-224.
20. Barroso, F. L., Pinto-Correia, T., Ramos, I. L., Surová, D. and Menezes, H. 2012. Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies: Photo-based questionnaires in the Mediterranean context. Landscape and Urban Planning 104(3-4):329-342.
21. Beza, B. B. 2010. The aesthetic value of a mountain landscape: A study of the Mt. Everest Trek. Landscape and Urban Planning 97(4):306-317.
22. st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 25:267-281.
23. Palmer, J. F. and Hoffman, R. E. 2001. Rating reliability and representation validty in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 54:149-161.
24. Acar, C. and Kurdoǧlu, B. Ç. 2005. Visual quality evaluation in Kaçkar Mointains. Sum on protected natural areas. Süleyman Demirel University September 8-10, 2005, Isparta, Turkey, Proceedings Book, pp. 219-226.
25. Acar, C., Kurdoǧlu, B. Ç., Kurdoǧlu, O. and Acar, H. 2006. Public preferences for visual quality and management in Kackar Mountains National Park (Turkey). The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 13:499-512.
26. Karahan, F. 2003. Landscape Planning of Erzurum-Rize Highway Corridor and its Opportunity for Usebility as Landscape View Road. Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate College of Atatürk University, Erzurum, 210 p.
27. Karahan, F. and Yi{dotless}lmaz, H. 2004a. Evaluation of Erzurum-Rize hihgway cooridor for ecotourism purposes. II. International Tourism, Environment and Culture Symposium, Izmir, Turkey, Proceedings Book, pp. 225-262.
28. Karahan, F. and Yi{dotless}lmaz, H. 2004b. Visual quality analysis of Erzurum highway cooridor. Landscape Architecture 2. Congress, Izmir, Turkey, Proceedings Book, pp. 203-205.
29. Shafer, E. L., Hamilton, J. F. and Schmidt, E. A. 1969. Natural landscape preferences: A predictive model. Journal of Leisure Research 1:1-19.
30. Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 352 p.
31. Appleton, J. 1996. The Experience of Landscape. Wiley, London, 296 p.
32. Real, E., Arce, C. and Sabucedo, J. M. 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.
33. The Municipality of Tokat, 2012a. Geographical Structure of Tokat. Available at: http://www.tokat.bel.tr/icerik.asp?id=16, Last consult: June, 2012.
34. The Governorship of Tokat, 2012. Geographical Structure of Tokat. Available at: http://www.tokat.gov.tr/default_B0.aspx?content=194, Last consult: June, 2012.
35. Turkey Statistical Agency 2012. The address based population registration system. Avaialable at: http://rapor.tuik.gov.tr/reports/rw servlet?adnksdb2&ENVID=adnksdb2Env&report=wa_idari_yapi_10so nrasi.RDF&p_il1=60&p_yil=2011&p_dil=1&desformat=html, Last consult: June, 2012.
36. The Municipality of Tokat 2012b. Directorate of Parks and Gardens, Tokat Municipality. http://www.tokat.bel.tr/BirimDetay.asp?id=7
37. Shafer, J. E. L. and Brush R. O. 1977. How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes. Landscape Planning 4:237-256.
38. Shuttleworth, S. 1980. The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management 11:61-76.
39. Law, C. S. and Zube, E. H. 1983. Effects of photographic composition on landscape perception. Landscape Research 8:22-23.
40. Stewart, T. R., Middleton, P., Downton, M. and Ely, D. 1984. Judgments of photographs vs. field observationas in studies of perception and judgment of the visual environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 4:283-302.
41. Clay, G. R. and 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.
42. Eroǧlu, E. 2004. Examining the seasonal variation of some plants and plants groups in Düzce city open and green areas on planting design perception: A. İ.B. Ü. Master thesis, The Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Düzce, 83 p.
43. Eroǧlu, E., Kesim, G. K. and Müderrisoǧlu, H. 2005. Determination of plants in open and green sareas in Düzce and evaluation of these plants according to some planting design principles. Journal of Agricultural Science 11(3):270-277.
44. Müderrisoǧlu, H., Eroǧlu, E., Ak, K. and Aydi{dotless}n, Ş. Ö. 2006. Visual perception fo tree form. Building and Environment 41:796-806.
45. Müderrisoǧlu, H. and Eroǧlu, E. 2006. Differences in visual perception of some coniferous trees under snow load. S.D. Ü. Journal of Faculty of Forestry 1:136-146.
46. Akkaya, H., Ayhan, N. and Eroǧlu, E. 2008. A Visual assessment of coastline landscape design in Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey: A Case Study of Vakfi{dotless}kebir. in 6. National The Students of Faculty of Forestry Symposium in Düzce. 8-9. May, 2008, Proceedings Book, p. 441.
47. Eroglu, E. and Acar, C. 2011. Visual landscape character of oriental spruce (Picea orientalis (l.) li{dotless}nk.) mountain forests in Turkey. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape management 19(3):189-197.
48. Howley, P., Donoghue, C. O. and Hynes, P. 2012. Exploring the general publics' preferences for traditional farm landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 104:66-74.
49. Daniel, T. C. and 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, 66 p.
50. Brown, T. C. and 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.
51. Clay, G. R. and 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.
52. Kali{dotless}n, 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, 221 p.
53. Ode, A., Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Messager, P. and Miller, D. 2009. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management 90(1):375-383.
54. Science-dictionary 2012. Landscape value definition, Last consult: Mai 2012. Available at: http://www.science-dictionary.com/definition/landscape-value.html.
55. Alessa, L., Kliskey, A. and Brown, G. 2008. Social-ecological hotspots mapping: A spatial approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning 85:27-39.
56. Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J. F., Canas-Madueno, J. A. and Ruiz-Aviles, P. 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 69(1):115-25.
57. Kearney, A. R. and Bradley, G. 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.
58. Brown, G. 2005. Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: Methods and applications. Society & Natural Resources 18(1):17-39.
59. Brown, G., Reed, P. and Harris, C. 2002. Testing a placebased theory for environmental evaluation: An Alaska case study. Applied Geography 22(1):49-77.
60. Zube, E. 1987. Perceived land use patterns and landscape values. Landscape Ecology 1:37-45.
61. Herzog, T. R. 1985. A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 5(225):241.
62. Meitner, M. J. 2004. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon: Relating perceptual judgments to locations. Landscape and Urban Planning 68:3-13.
63. Bulut, Z. and Yilmaz, H. 2009. Determination of waterscape beauties through visual quality assessment method. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 154:459-468.
64. Herzog, T. R. and Bosley, P. J. 1992. Tranquility and preference as affective qualities of natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12(2):115-127.
65. Ulrich, R. S. 1983. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In Altman, I. and Wohlwill, J. F. (eds). Behavior and the Natural Environment. Plenum Press, New York, pp.85-120.
66. Acar, H. 2010. Assessment of Natural Landscape Element's Play Affordances. PhD thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Institute of Science, Department of Landscape Architecture, Trabzon, 241 p.
67. Bekçi, B., Cengiz, C. and Cengiz, B. 2012. Evaluating urban biodiversity in terms of user preferences: Urban residential landscapes in Bartin (Turkey). Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 21(6B):1626-1634.
68. Yao, Y., Zhu, X., Xu, Y., Yang, H., Wu, X., Li, Y. and Zhang, Y. 2012. Assessing the visual quality of green landscaping in rural residential areas: The case of Changzhou, China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessessment 184(2):951-67.
69. Dramstad, W. E., Tveit, M. S., Fjellstad, W. J. and Fry, G. L. A. 2006. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning 78(4):465-474.
70. Nassauer, J. 1995. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal 14:161-170.
71. Ndubisi, F. 2002. Ecological Planning: A Historical and Comparative Synthesis. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 287 p.
72. Akbar, K. F., Hale, W. H. G. and Headley, A. D. 2003. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England. Landscape and Urban Planning 63(3):139-144.
73. Cook, P. S. and Cable, T. T. 1995. The scenic beauty of shelterbelts on the Great Plains. Landscape and Urban Planning 32(1):63-69.
74. Yang, J., Zhao, L., Mcbride, J. and Gong, P. 2009. Can you see green? Assessing the visibility of urban forests in cities. Landscape and Urban Planning 91(2):97-104.