SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Mimarlık ve Yaşam / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2

Visual Complexity Analysis of Built Environments on the Axis of Tourism Potential: The Case of Odunpazarı, Eskişehir

Turizm Potansiyeli Ekseninde Yapılı Çevrelerdeki Görsel Karmaşıklığın Analizi: Odunpazarı, Eskişehir Örneği

Öznur Işınkaralar(KASTAMONU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9774-5137
Pages
373–391
Publication Date
2023-04-30
🏛️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 reveals that the FDH-FDT method can be an effective systematic tool in quantitatively evaluating built environments in the context of visual-spatial perception.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The visual environment is an urban component that directs and influences the citizens and the users visiting the city.
📊
Key Findings & Data:First, preprocessing was performed for 60 street images selected from the regions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study reveals that the FDH-FDT method can be an effective systematic tool in quantitatively evaluating built environments in the context of visual-spatial perception.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Mekânsal Planlama · Kentsel Tasarım · Yapılı Çevre

Abstract

The visual environment is an urban component that directs and influences the citizens and the users visiting the city. Terms of physical decisions must analyze urban design based on visuals, especially in areas with high tourism potential. It is possible to calculate the measurable values of the images presented with visual complexity analysis, which has come to the forefront thanks to the developments in computer-aided image processing technology. One of the most common methods used to evaluate visual complexity is fractal geometry-based analysis. The research aims to reveal the fractal dimension in the complexity assessments of the built environments by considering three different attraction regions (Islands, Boulevard, and Museums) from Odunpazarı district of Eskişehir, where the visitor potential is high with many historical and socio-cultural values. First, preprocessing was performed for 60 street images selected from the regions. Thus, perceptually meaningful edge structures in the images were effectively revealed. Then, the level of visual complexity was measured with the FDH-FDT method. In the method, FDH represents the heterogeneity dimension (Dv) of the images, and FDT represents the heterogeneity dimension of the tissues [Dv(s)]. The visual complexity values obtained were evaluated with the complex matrix of four quarters. While Dv values are between 1.51-1.70 in the Islands region, Dv(s) values vary between 1.62-1.76. While Dv values in the Boulevard area ranged between 1.50-1.69, Dv(s) values were measured between 1.54-1.78. In the Museums’ region, the Dv values of the images vary between 1.47-1.75, while the Dv(s) values are between 1.52-1.74. As a result of the research, it has been reached that the Islands region has a more complex design than other areas. This result shows that the Islands region is a more attractive and exciting urban area for visitors in terms of visual richness. The study reveals that the FDH-FDT method can be an effective systematic tool in quantitatively evaluating built environments in the context of visual-spatial perception.

Özet

Görsel çevre, kentliyi ve kenti ziyaret eden kullanıcıları yönlendiren ve etkileyen bir kentsel bileşendir. Özellikle turizm potansiyeli yüksek alanlarda görsellerden yola çıkarak kentsel tasarıma yönelik analizler yürütmek fiziksel kararlar açısından bir gerekliliktir. Bilgisayar destekli görüntü işleme teknolojisinde yaşanan gelişmeler sayesinde öne çıkan görsel karmaşıklık analizi ile sunulan görsellerin ölçülebilir değerlerinin hesaplanması mümkündür. Görsel karmaşıklığın değerlendirilmesinde kullanılan en yaygın yöntemlerden biri ise fraktal geometri tabanlı analizlerdir. Araştırmada tarihi ve sosyo-kültürel pek çok değeri ile ziyaretçi potansiyelinin yüksek olduğu Eskişehir Odunpazarı ilçesinden üç farklı cazibe bölgesi (Adalar, Bulvar ve Müzeler) ele alınarak, yapılı çevrelerinin karmaşıklık değerlendirmelerinde fraktal boyutu ortaya koymak amaçlanmaktadır. Bölgelerden seçilen 60 sokak görüntüsü için ilk olarak ön işleme yapılmıştır. Böylece, görüntülerdeki algısal olarak anlamlı kenar yapıları etkili bir şekilde ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Ardından, görüntülerin fraktal heterojenlik boyutu (FDH: fractal dimension of heterogeneity) ve dokunun fraktal boyutu (FDT: fractal dimension of texture) yöntemleri ile görsel karmaşıklık düzeyi ölçülmüştür. Yöntemde FDH görüntülerin heterojenlik boyutunu (Dv), FDT ise dokuların heterojenlik boyutunu [Dv(s)] temsil etmektedir. Elde edilen görsel karmaşıklık değerleri, dört farklı çeyrekten oluşan karmaşıklık matrisi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Adalar bölgesinde Dv değerleri 1,51-1,70 arasındayken, Dv(s) değerleri ise 1,62-1,76 arasında değişmektedir. Bulvar bölgesinde Dv değerleri 1,50-1,69 arasında değişim gösterirken, Dv(s) değerleri 1,54-1,78 arasında ölçülmüştür. Müzeler bölgesinde ise görüntülerin Dv değerleri 1,47-1,75 arasında değişim gösterirken, Dv(s) değerleri 1,52-1,74 arasındadır. Araştırma sonucunda, Adalar bölgesinin diğer alanlardan daha karmaşık bir tasarıma sahip olduğuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu sonuç ise Adalar bölgesinin görsel zenginlik açısından ziyaretçiler için daha çekici ve heyecan verici bir kentsel alan olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma, görsel mekânsal algı bağlamında yapılı çevrelerin nicel olarak değerlendirilmesinde FDH-FDT yönteminin etkili bir sistematik araç olabileceğini göstermektedir

🔖

Cite This Article

Işınkaralar, Ö. (2023). Visual Complexity Analysis of Built Environments on the Axis of Tourism Potential: The Case of Odunpazarı, Eskişehir. Mimarlık ve Yaşam, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 373–391. https://doi.org/10.26835/my.1206985

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (33)

  1. Abboushi, B., Elzeyadi, I., Taylor, R., & Sereno, M. (2019). Fractals in architecture: The visual interest, preference, and mood response to projected fractal light patterns in interior spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61, 57-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.12.005
  2. Akbarishahabi, L., Tekel, A. (2017). Fractal Analysis of Street Physical Characteristics: The Developmentof a Practical Tool For Improving Visual Quality in Street Scenes. Ecology Planning and Design,316-326.
  3. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A Pattern Language, Towns, Buildings, Construction. (Second Edition). New York: Oxford University Press.
  4. Cooper, J., Su, M. L., & Oskrochi, R. (2013). The influence of fractal dimension and vegetation on the perceptions of streetscape quality in Taipei: with comparative comments made in relation to two British case studies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 40(1), 43-62. https://doi.org/10.1068/b38010
  5. Cooper, J., Watkinson, D., & Oskrochi, R. (2010). Fractal analysis and perception of visual quality in everyday street vistas. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(5), 808-822. https://doi.org/10.1068/b34061
  6. Dupont, L., Antrop, M., & Van Eetvelde, V. (2014). Eye-tracking analysis in landscape perception research: Influence of photograph properties and landscape characteristics. Landscape research, 39(4), 417-432. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2013.773966
  7. Encalada-Abarca, L., Ferreira, C. C., & Rocha, J. (2022). Measuring tourism intensification in urban destinations: An approach based on fractal analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 61(2), 394-413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520987627
  8. Ewing, R., & Handy, S. (2009). Measuring the unmeasurable: urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 65-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800802451155
  9. Falk, J. H., & Balling, J. D. (2010). Evolutionary influence on human landscape preference. Environment and behavior, 42(4), 479-493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509341244
  10. Hagerhall, C. M., Laike, T., Kuller, M., Marcheschi, E., Boydston, C., & Taylor, R. P. (2015). Human physiological benefits of viewing nature: EEG responses to exact and statistical fractal patterns. Nonlinear dynamics, psychology, and life sciences, 19(1), 1-12.
  11. Hagerhall, C. M., Purcell, T., & Taylor, R. (2004). Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of environmental psychology, 24(2), 247-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.004
  12. Huang, A. S. H., & Lin, Y. J. (2020). The effect of landscape colour, complexity and preference on viewing behaviour. Landscape Research, 45(2), 214-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2019.1593336
  13. Isinkaralar, O., & Varol, C. (2023). A cellular automata-based approach for spatio-temporal modeling of the city center as a complex system: The case of Kastamonu, Türkiye. Cities, 132, 104073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.104073
  14. İlgar, E. (2008). Kent kimliği ve kentsel değişimin kent kimliği boyutu: Eskişehir örneği. Yüksek lisans tezi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Mimarlık Ana Bilim Dalı, Eskişehir.
  15. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death And Life of Great American Cities. London: Vintage Books.
  16. Juliani, A. W., Bies, A. J., Boydston, C. R., Taylor, R. P., & Sereno, M. E. (2016). Navigation performance in virtual environments varies with fractal dimension of landscape. Journal of environmental psychology, 47, 155-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.011
  17. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge university press.
  18. Lazard, A. J., & King, A. J. (2020). Objective design to subjective evaluations: Connecting visual complexity to aesthetic and usability assessments of eHealth. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(1), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1606976
  19. Ma, L., He, S., & Lu, M. (2021). A Measurement of Visual Complexity for Heterogeneity in the Built Environment Based on Fractal Dimension and Its Application in Two Gardens. Fractal and Fractional, 5(4), 278. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract5040278
  20. Ma, L., Zhang, H., & Lu, M. (2020). Building's fractal dimension trend and its application in visual complexity map. Building and Environment, 178, 106925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106925
  21. Madan, C. R., Bayer, J., Gamer, M., Lonsdorf, T. B., & Sommer, T. (2018). Visual complexity and affect: Ratings reflect more than meets the eye. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 2368. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02368
  22. Mandelbrot, B. (1982). The fractal geometry of nature. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.
  23. Patuano, A. (2018). Measuring naturalness and complexity using the fractal dimensions of landscape photographs. Journal of Digital Landscape Architecture, 3, 328-335. https://doi.org/10.14627/537642035
  24. Patuano, A., & Tara, A. (2020). Fractal geometry for landscape architecture: review of methodologies and interpretations. Journal of Digital Landscape Architecture, 5, 72-80.
  25. Salingaros, N. A. (1999). Urban Space and its Information Field. Journal of Urban Design, 4(1), 29-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809908724437
  26. Sigaki, H. Y., Perc, M., & Ribeiro, H. V. (2018). History of art paintings through the lens of entropy and complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), E8585-E8594. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800083115
  27. Stamps, A. E. (2002). Fractals, Skylines, Nature and Beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(3), 163-184.
  28. Tekel, A. (2021). Tarihsel Süreçte Sokak ve Caddelerin Görsel Estetik Kalitesinde Meydana Gelen Değişimi Değerlendirmede Bir Model Önerisi: Ankara’nın Ulus ve Kızılay Kent Merkezleri Örneği. Ankara Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(2), 217-238. 10.5505/jas.2021.95867
  29. Ulrich, R.S. (1983). Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment. In: Altman, I., Wohlwill, J.F. (eds) Behavior and the Natural Environment. Human Behavior and Environment, vol 6. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_4
  30. Vaughan, J., & Ostwald, M. J. (2021). Measuring the geometry of nature and architecture: comparing the visual properties of Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater and its natural setting. Open House International. https://doi.org/10.1108/OHI-01-2021-0011
  31. Yang, Z., & Purves, D. (2003). A statistical explanation of visual space. Nature neuroscience, 6(6), 632-640. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1059
  32. Yılmaz, D., Öztürk, S., & Işınkaralar, Ö. (2023). Bir Yaşam Sahnesi Olarak Sokak Algısının Kullanıcılar Gözünden Okunması: Ankara ve İstanbul Sokaklarından Tespitler. Artium, 11(1), 75-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.51664/artium.1169765
  33. Yılmaz, D., Öztürk, S., Işınkaralar, Ö. (2022). Kent İmgesinin Yapıtaşı Olarak Sokaklarda Mekânsal Zenginliğin Fraktal Geometri İle Analizi, Kent Akademisi Dergisi, 15(3)1341-.1358. https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.996119