SavedAdd your journal

Journals / GSI Journals Serie A: Advancements in Tourism Recreation and Sports Sciences / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1

Measuring the Perception of Visual Quality in a Coastal Park: Akyazı Coastal Park (Ordu-Turkey)

Kıyı Parkında Görsel Kalite Algısının Ölçülmesi: Akyazı Kıyı Parkı (Ordu-Türkiye)

Pınar Civelek(ORDU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0003-1331-6960
Pervin Yeşil(ORDU UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-4395-6881
Mesut Güzel(ORDU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6172-5812
Pages
1–12
Publication Date
2025-02-28
🏛️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 study concluded that gender does not significantly affect visual quality perception.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to identify the factors that influence individuals' perception of visual quality in a coastal park.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study concluded that gender does not significantly affect visual quality perception.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, for those living more than 3 years, the perception of visual quality then gradually decreased.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Görsel kalite · görsel algı · kıyı parkı

Abstract

The aim of this study is to identify the factors that influence individuals' perception of visual quality in a coastal park. To achieve this, a visual questionnaire was conducted among students who frequently visit the park. The data collected was analysed using statistical methods. The study concluded that gender does not significantly affect visual quality perception. Additionally, there was no difference in visual quality perception between participants who live by the sea and those who do not. However, the number of years that participants have lived in the city does have a relative impact on their perception of visual quality. The study found that visual quality perception remained relatively stable for those living in the city for up to 2 years but increased for those living in the city between 2 and 3 years. However, for those living more than 3 years, the perception of visual quality then gradually decreased.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, bireylerin bir kıyı parkındaki görsel kalite algılarını etkileyen faktörleri belirlemektir. Bu hedefe ulaşmak için parkı sık ziyaret eden öğrenciler arasında bir görsel anket yapılmıştır. Toplanan veriler istatistiksel yöntemler kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonucunda, cinsiyetin görsel kalite algısını anlamlı bir şekilde etkilemediği belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, deniz kenarında yaşayan katılımcılar ile yaşamayanlar arasında görsel kalite algısı açısından bir fark bulunmamıştır. Ancak, katılımcıların şehirde yaşadıkları yıl sayısının görsel kalite algısında göreceli bir etkisi olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Şehirde 2 yıla kadar yaşayanlar için görsel kalite algısının nispeten sabit kaldığı, ancak 2 ile 3 yıl arasında yaşayanlar için arttığı görülmüştür. Bununla birlikte, 3 yıldan fazla yaşayanlar için görsel kalite algısının giderek azaldığı tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Civelek, P., Yeşil, P., Güzel, M. (2025). Measuring the Perception of Visual Quality in a Coastal Park: Akyazı Coastal Park (Ordu-Turkey). GSI Journals Serie A: Advancements in Tourism Recreation and Sports Sciences, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.53353/atrss.1495790

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (45)

  1. Akadiri, P., Chinyio, E., & Olomolaiye, P. (2012). Design of a sustainable building: a conceptual framework for implementing sustainability in the building sector. Buildings, 2(2), 126–152. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings2020126
  2. Braçe, O., Garrido-Cumbrera, M., & Correa-Fernández, J. (2021). Gender differences in the perceptions of green spaces characteristics. Social Science Quarterly, 102(6), 2640–2648. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13074
  3. Buijs, A., Elands, B., & Langers, F. (2009). No wilderness for immigrants: cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(3), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.003
  4. Cheng, L., Chu, S., Zong, W., Li, S., Wu, J., & Li, M. (2017). Use of Tencent street view imagery for visual perception of streets. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 6(9), 265. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6090265
  5. Chien, Y., Carver, S., & Comber, A. (2021). An exploratory analysis of expert and nonexpert-based landscape aesthetics evaluations: a case study from Wales. Land, 10(2), 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020192
  6. Costa, T., & Lampert, A. (2018). Use of the direct method for evaluation and valuation of the landscape visual quality. Brazilian Journal of Aquatic Science and Technology, 21(2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.14210/bjast.v21n2.12475
  7. Çelik, F., & Jaiyeoba, E. B. (2023). The contributions of the green areas in residence immediate environment on quality of urban life. Sage Open, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231220092
  8. Çilek, M. Ü. (2023). Visual perception evaluation with semantic differentiation technique in design disciplines: Elazig Balakgazi Park. Artium, 11(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.51664/artium.1170754
  9. Dallimer, M., Irvine, K., Skinner, A., Davies, Z., Rouquette, J., Maltby, L., Warren, P. H., Armsworth, P. R., & Gaston, K. (2012). Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. Bioscience, 62(1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.9
  10. Daniel, T. C. (2001). Whiter scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape Urban and Planning, 54, 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4
  11. Danjaji, A., Ariffin, M., Sharaai, A., & Yunos, Y. (2018). Impact of urban green space attribute on visitors’ satisfaction in Putrajaya: Malaysia. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 17(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijesd.2018.10010104
  12. Dupont, L., Antrop, M., & Eetvelde, V. (2015). Does landscape related expertise influence the visual perception of landscape photographs? Implications for participatory landscape planning and management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 141, 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.05.003
  13. Güneroğlu, N., & Bekar, M. (2022). Visual perception of urban greening in public parks: Evidence from Trabzon city, Turkey. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 30(1), 124–134. https://doi.org/10.3846/jeelm.2022.16399
  14. Gür, M., & Sezer, F. (2018). Indoor comfort conditions in terms of user satisfaction for middle-income groups: the case of Ataevler, Bursa, Turkey. International Journal of Research - Granthaalayah, 6(6), 522–535. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v6.i6.2018.1398
  15. Gyurkovich, M., & Pieczara, M. (2021). Using composition to assess and enhance visual values in landscapes. Sustainability, 13(8), 4185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084185
  16. Huang, C., & Yu, S. (2012). A study of environmental perception patterns of the visually impaired and environmental design. Indoor and Built Environment, 22(5), 743–749. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326x12456317
  17. Huang, T., & Huang, C. (2019). Study on the preference of senior citizens in urban park public facilities. People International Journal of Social Sciences, 5(1), 938–951. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2019.51.938951
  18. Kiper, T., Korkut, A., & Topal, T. Ü. (2017). Görsel peyzaj kalite değerlendirmesi: Kıyıköy örneği. KSÜ Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, 20(3), 258–269. https://www.doi.org/10.18016/ksudobil.289463
  19. Li, J. (2022). The design and renovation for urban pocket park based on biophilic concept - a case of Larkin Street Park, Sydney, Australia. Highlights in Science Engineering and Technology, 28, 166–177. https://doi.org/10.54097/hset.v28i.4103
  20. Lin, L., & Qiu, H. (2022). The changes and driving factors of coastal areas land use in time and space: a case study in Fujian province, Southeast China. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 31(3), 2695–2707. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/144191
  21. Liu, R., & Xiao, J. (2020). Factors affecting users’ satisfaction with urban parks through online comments data: evidence from Shenzhen, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 253. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010253
  22. Loures, L., Loures, A., Nunes, J., & Panagopoulos, T. (2015). Landscape valuation of environmental amenities throughout the application of direct and indirect methods. Sustainability, 7(1), 794–810. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7010794
  23. Luo, T., Yang, F., Wu, L., & Gao, X. (2020). Equity evaluation of urban park system: a case study of Xiamen, China. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 28(3), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.3846/jeelm.2020.12704
  24. Maas, J., Spreeuwenberg, P., Winsum-Westra, M., Verheij, R., Vries, S., & Groenewegen, P. (2009). Is green space in the living environment associated with people’s feelings of social safety? Environment and Planning an Economy and Space, 41(7), 1763–1777. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4196
  25. Malik, A., Akbar, R., Sri, M., & Indradjati, P. (2020). Spatial analysis approach related to the relationship between proximity and security perception in encouragement of public space park use: the case study of Kalbu Palem Park (Bandung, Indonesia). Geographia Technica, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.21163/gt_2020.151.18
  26. Man, C., Dorji, Y., & Zangmo, S. (2022). User satisfaction and the social and environmental benefits of urban green spaces: a case study of Thimphu City, Bhutan. Nakhara Journal of Environmental Design and Planning, 21(2), 216. https://doi.org/10.54028/nj202221216
  27. Marshall, N., Barnes, M., Birtles, A., Brown, K., Cinner, J., Curnock, M., Eakin, H., Goldberg, J., Gooch, M., Kittinger, J., Marshall, P., Manuel-Navarrete, D., Pelling, M., Pert, P. L., Smit, B., Tobin, R. (2018). Measuring what matters in the great barrier reef. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 16(5), 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1808
  28. Marti, R., Li, Z., Catry, T., Roux, E., Mangeas, M., Handschumacher, P., … & Gong, P. (2020). A mapping review on urban landscape factors of Dengue retrieved from earth observation data, GIS techniques, and survey questionnaires. Remote Sensing, 12(6), 932. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12060932
  29. Othman, R., Suid, S., Noor, N., Baharuddin, Z., Hashim, K., & Mahamod, L. (2019). Estimation of carbon sequestration rate of urban park with linear and curvilinear design landscape setting. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 17(4), 8089–8101. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1704_80898101
  30. Palmer, S., Schloss, K., & Sammartino, J. (2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 77–107. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100504
  31. Pan, L., Lu, L., & Gürsoy, D. (2020). Traveling to a gendered destination: a goal-framed advertising perspective. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 44(3), 499–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348019899150
  32. Pittman, S., Rodwell, L., Shellock, R., Williams, M., Attrill, M., Bedford, J., … & Rees, S. (2019). Marine parks for coastal cities: a concept for enhanced community well-being, prosperity and sustainable city living. Marine Policy, 103, 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.012
  33. Polat, A., & Akay, A. (2015). Relationships between the visual preferences of urban recreation area users and various landscape design elements. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(3), 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.05.009
  34. R Core Team (2024). R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. https://cran.r-project.org Richardson, E., & Mitchell, R. (2010). Gender differences in relationships between urban green space and health in the United Kingdom. Social Science & Medicine, 71(3), 568–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.015
  35. Sadana, A. (2016). Public perception of visual quality of Cut Mutia Mosque Park as public space in Jakarta. Journal of Islamic Architecture, 3(4), 171. https://doi.org/10.18860/jia.v3i4.3092
  36. Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3-4), 591–611. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591.
  37. Sowińska-Świerkosz, B., & Michalik-Śnieżek, M. (2020). Landscape indicators as a tool of assessing landscape quality. E3S Web of Conferences, 171, 02011. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202017102011
  38. The Jamovi Project (2024, February 12). Jamovi Version 2.4.11. https://www.jamovi.org
  39. Türkoğlu, H., & Seçmen, S. (2019). The role of urban waterfront parks on quality of life in Istanbul. A/Z ITU Journal of Faculty of Architecture, 16(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.5505/itujfa.2019.23600
  40. Wang, P., Yang, W., Dengju, W., & He, Y. (2021). Insights into public visual behaviors through eye-tracking tests: a study based on national park system pilot area landscapes. Land, 10(5), 497. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10050497
  41. Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org
  42. Wu, Y., Bishop, I., Hossain, H., & Sposito, V. (2006). Using GIS in landscape visual quality assessment. Applied GIS, 2(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2104/ag060018
  43. Xiang, L., Tian, Y., & Pan, Y. (2022). Study on landscape evaluation and optimization strategy of Central Park in Qingkou Town. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1978. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06006-z
  44. Xie, B., An, Z., Zheng, Y., & Li, Z. (2018). Healthy aging with parks: association between park accessibility and the health status of older adults in urban China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 43, 476–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.010
  45. Zhang, H., Guo, F., Liu, K., Wang, J., Dong, J., & Zhu, P. (2022). Spatial differences in thermal comfort in summer in coastal areas: a study on Dalian, China. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1024757