SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 26 Sayı: 2

The Effect of Augmented Reality Technology on the Perceptibility of Landscape Projects

Artırılmış Gerçeklik Teknolojisinin Peyzaj Projelerinin Algılanabilirliğine Etkisi

Recep Özmisir(İzmir Demokrasi Üniversitesi)0000-0002-8379-1594
Hakan Doygun(İZMİR DEMOKRASİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2920-1984
Pages
547–557
Publication Date
2025-10-15
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings revealed that the AR application demonstrated a statistically significant advantage over render images, particularly in the criteria of detail, depth, and aesthetics.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The impact of Augmented Reality (AR) technology on users’ spatial perception and visual evaluation processes in landscape design projects is gaining increasing significance.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Within the scope of the research, a sample winter garden design was presented both through render images and a mobile AR application, and experienced by 30 undergraduate students from the Department of Landscape Architecture at Izmir Democracy University.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings revealed that the AR application demonstrated a statistically significant advantage over render images, particularly in the criteria of detail, depth, and aesthetics.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Artırılmış gerçeklik · Peyzaj tasarımı · Üç boyutlu modelleme

Abstract

The impact of Augmented Reality (AR) technology on users’ spatial perception and visual evaluation processes in landscape design projects is gaining increasing significance. The aim of this study is to comparatively evaluate an AR application and conventional render images in the context of visual perception criteria in landscape design. Within the scope of the research, a sample winter garden design was presented both through render images and a mobile AR application, and experienced by 30 undergraduate students from the Department of Landscape Architecture at Izmir Democracy University. Participants completed a questionnaire based on visual perception criteria, including perceptibility, detail and clarity, perspective and depth, realism, and visual appeal and aesthetics. The collected data were analyzed using the non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. The findings revealed that the AR application demonstrated a statistically significant advantage over render images, particularly in the criteria of detail, depth, and aesthetics. In conclusion, AR technology emerges as an effective tool in landscape design evaluation processes by enhancing user interaction and spatial awareness.

Özet

Artırılmış gerçeklik (AG) teknolojisinin peyzaj tasarım projelerinde kullanıcıların mekânsal algı ve görsel değerlendirme süreçlerine etkisi giderek daha fazla önem kazanmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, AG uygulaması ile geleneksel render görsellerin peyzaj tasarımında görsel algı kriterleri bağlamında karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmesidir. Araştırma kapsamında, örnek bir kış bahçesi tasarımı hem render görseller hem de mobil AG uygulaması ile sunulmuş; İzmir Demokrasi Üniversitesi Peyzaj Mimarlığı Bölümü'nden 30 lisans öğrencisi tarafından deneyimlenmiştir. Katılımcılar, algılanabilirlik, detay ve netlik, perspektif ve derinlik, gerçekçilik ile görsel çekicilik ve estetik gibi görsel algı kriterleri doğrultusunda anket formunu doldurmuştur. Toplanan veriler parametrik olmayan Wilcoxon İşaretli Sıralar Testi ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, AG uygulamasının özellikle detay, derinlik ve estetik kriterlerinde render görsellere kıyasla anlamlı üstünlük sağladığını göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak, AG teknolojisi peyzaj tasarımında kullanıcı etkileşimini ve mekânsal farkındalığı artırarak, değerlendirme süreçlerinde etkili bir araç olarak öne çıkmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özmisir, R., Doygun, H. (2025). The Effect of Augmented Reality Technology on the Perceptibility of Landscape Projects. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 2, 547–557. https://doi.org/10.17474/artvinofd.1729231

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (39)

  1. Aksu NS, Ercoşkun ÖY (2022) Augmented reality (AR) applications in sustainable urban planning. Journal of Management Theory and Practices Research, 3(1):39-53.https://journals.academicianstudies.com/jmtpr/article/view/33
  2. Amin D, Govilkar S (2015) Comparative study of augmented reality SDKs. International Journal on Computational Science & Applications, 5(1):11-26. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijcsa.2015.5102
  3. Bell S (2012) Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process. Routledge.
  4. Clay GR, Smidt RK (2004) Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 66(4):239-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2046(03)00114-2
  5. Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K (2002) Research Methods in Education. Routledge.
  6. Conover WJ (1999) Practical Nonparametric Statistics (3rd Ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  7. Creswell JW (2014) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  8. Demir M, Özmısır R, Yanık H(2022) Augmented Reality Technology Aided Vertical Garden Design. International MEDITERRANEAN Congress, Mersin, Turkey.
  9. Field (2013) Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th Ed.). London: Sage Publications.
  10. Fischer J, Bartz D, Straber W (2005) Stylized Augmented Reality for Improved Immersion. In IEEE Proceedings. Virtual Reality, pp. 195-202).
  11. Gliem JA, Gliem RR (2003) Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. In Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, 1:82-87.
  12. Gülbahar K (2019) Mimarlık eğitiminde artırılmış gerçeklik tabanlı mobil uygulama önerisi: StudioArtTool Box. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Mimarlık Ana Bilim Dalı, İstanbul.
  13. Gülel Z, Arabacıoğlu BC (2019) Arttırılmış gerçekliğin (AG) mekan tasarımı eğitiminde kullanımına potansiyeller ve kısıtlamalar ışığında güncel bir bakış. Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, (23):151-177.
  14. Hassamancıoğlu VM, Yılmaz G, Çelik A, Erdoğdu S (2025) Kentsel açık yeşil alanların kurakçıl peyzaj tasarımına uygunluğunun değerlendirilmesi: Tokat Kenti örneği. Research in Agricultural Sciences, 56(1):50-65. https://doi.org/10.17097/agricultureatauni.1508760
  15. Hollander M, Wolfe DA (1999) Nonparametric Statistical Methods (2nd Ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  16. Hunter M, Soro A, Brown R (2021) Enhancing urban conversations for smarter cities: augmented reality as an enabler of digital civic participation. Interaction Design and Architecture, 48:75-99. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-048-004
  17. Agusanto K, Li L, Chuangui Z, Wan Sing N (2003) Photorealistic rendering for augmented reality using environment illumination. The Second IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, Proceedings, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 208-216.
  18. Kent L, Snider C, Gopsill J, Hicks B (2021) Mixed reality in design prototyping: a systematic review. Design Studies, 77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101046.
  19. Kerr J, Lawson G (2020) Augmented reality in design education: landscape architecture studies as AR experience. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 39(1):6-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12227
  20. Korkut EH, Surer E (2023) Visualization in virtual reality: a systematic review. Virtual Reality, 27(2):1447-1480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-023-00753-8
  21. Liu M, Nijhuis S (2020) Digital methods for mapping landscape spaces in landscape design. Journal of Digital Landscape Architecture, 2020(5):634-645. https://doi.org/10.14627/537690065
  22. Misthos LM, Krassanakis V, Merlemis N, Kesidis AL (2023) Modeling the visual landscape: a review on approaches, methods and techniques. Sensors, 23(19):8135.
  23. Morosi F, Carli I, Caruso G, Cascini G, Dhokia V, Ben Guefrache F (2018) Analysis of Co-Design Scenarios and Activities for the Development of a Spatial-Augmented Reality Design Platform. In DS 92: Proceedings of the DESIGN, 15th International Design Conference (pp. 381-392). https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0504
  24. Razali NM, Wah YB (2011) Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1):21-33.
  25. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3-4):591-611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333709
  26. Song G, Li Y, Zhang LM (2022) Landscape fusion method based on augmented reality and multiview reconstruction. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, 2022(1):5894236.
  27. Soria C, Roth M (2018) Unreal reality: an empirical investigation of augmented reality effects on spatial cognition in landscape architecture. Journal of Digital Landscape Architecture, 3:150-162.
  28. Sungkur RK, Panchoo A, Bhoyroo NK (2016) Augmented reality, the future of contextual mobile learning. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 13(2):123-146. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-07-2015-0017
  29. Tomkins A, Lange E (2019) Interactive landscape design and flood visualisation in augmented reality. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 3(2):43.
  30. Tveit M, Ode Å, Fry G (2006) Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3):229-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390600783269
  31. Vroom M (2006) Lexicon of Garden and Landscape Architecture. Birkhäuser, ISBN: 9783764375256.
  32. Wang X (2009) Augmented reality in architecture and design: potentials and challenges for application. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 7(2):309-326. https://doi.org/10.1260/147807709788921985
  33. Wang J, Ma Q, Wei X (2023) The application of extended reality technology in architectural design education: a review. Buildings, 13(12):2931. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13122931
  34. Waterman T (2015) The Fundamentals of Landscape Architecture. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  35. Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics, 1(6):80-83. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001968
  36. Xu X, Chen KB, Lin JH, Radwin RG (2015) The accuracy of the oculus rift virtual reality head-mounted display during cervical spine mobility measurement. J. Biomech., 48:721–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.01.005
  37. Yılmaz S, Eren ET, Alpak M (2019) Peyzaj Tasarımında Estetik. In SETSCI-Conference Proceedings, 10:61-65.
  38. Zhao J, Perera C (2021) Application of computer augmented reality (AR) technology in landscape architecture design. In International conference on Smart Technologies and Systems for Internet of Things, pp:375-381, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
  39. Zülkadiroğlu D, Doygun H (2016) Kentsel akarsuların korunmasına yönelik peyzaj planlama ve tasarım ilkeleri geliştirilmesi: Kahramanmaraş Kenti örneği. İnönü Üniversitesi Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, 6(13).