SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Forest Science / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1

Raising environmental awareness through landscape design: A comparative document analysis of Germany, Latvia, and Turkiye

Peyzaj tasarımı yoluyla çevre bilincini artırma: Almanya, Letonya ve Türkiye'nin karşılaştırmalı belge analizi

Yasemin Müminoğlu(MUŞ ALPARSLAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1574-2774
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-03
🏛️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 reveal that Germany leads in structured collaborative design frameworks within “living laboratories,” Latvia excels in integrating seasonal ecosystem visualization, and Türkiye stands out in leveraging experiential user feedback.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Rapid urbanization and environmental degradation necessitate effective pedagogical tools to promote urban sustainability.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study evaluates how landscape design can increase environmental awareness by comparing its applications in three distinct socio-political and ecological contexts across the Euro-Asian gradient: Germany, representing advanced nature-based innovations; Latvia, emphasizing habitat conservation and cultural identity; and Türkiye, focusing on community-oriented urban interventions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that Germany leads in structured collaborative design frameworks within “living laboratories,” Latvia excels in integrating seasonal ecosystem visualization, and Türkiye stands out in leveraging experiential user feedback.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2007 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Peyzaj tasarımı · çevre bilinci · karşılaştırmalı matris

Abstract

Rapid urbanization and environmental degradation necessitate effective pedagogical tools to promote urban sustainability. This study evaluates how landscape design can increase environmental awareness by comparing its applications in three distinct socio-political and ecological contexts across the Euro-Asian gradient: Germany, representing advanced nature-based innovations; Latvia, emphasizing habitat conservation and cultural identity; and Türkiye, focusing on community-oriented urban interventions. Using a systematic qualitative approach involving document analysis of peer-reviewed articles and project studies published between 2007 and 2025, a comparative matrix based on three key dimensions was constructed: educational landscapes, ecological aesthetics, and participatory design. The findings reveal that Germany leads in structured collaborative design frameworks within “living laboratories,” Latvia excels in integrating seasonal ecosystem visualization, and Türkiye stands out in leveraging experiential user feedback. This study contributes to the literature by providing an international framework that moves landscape design from one context to another, supporting its transformation from a purely aesthetic discipline to an active educational tool for sustainability.

Özet

Hızlı kentleşme ve çevresel bozulma, kentsel sürdürülebilirliği teşvik etmek için etkili pedagojik araçlara olan ihtiyacı ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışma; peyzaj tasarımının çevresel farkındalığı artırmadaki rolünü, Avrasya bölgesinden seçilen üç farklı sosyo-politik ve ekolojik bağlam üzerinden karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektedir. Bu kapsamda, gelişmiş doğa tabanlı yenilikleriyle Almanya, habitat koruma ve kültürel kimlik vurgusuyla Letonya ve topluluk odaklı kentsel müdahaleleriyle Türkiye örnekleri ele alınmıştır. Çalışmada, 2007 ile 2025 yılları arasında yayınlanan hakemli makale ve proje çalışmaların belge analizini içeren sistematik bir nitel yaklaşım kullanılarak, üç temel boyuta dayalı karşılaştırmalı bir matris oluşturulmuştur. Bunlar: Eğitimsel peyzajlar, ekolojik estetik ve katılımcı tasarım. Bulgular, Almanya'nın “yaşayan laboratuvarlar” içindeki yapılandırılmış ortak tasarım çerçevelerinde lider olduğunu, Letonya'nın mevsimsel ekosistem görselleştirmesini entegre etmede üstün olduğunu ve Türkiye'nin deneyimsel kullanıcı geri bildiriminden yararlanmada öne çıktığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışma, peyzaj tasarımını bir çerçeveden diğerine taşıyan uluslararası bir nitelik sağlayarak literatüre katkıda bulunmaktadır. Tamamen estetik bir disiplinden, sürdürülebilirlik için aktif bir eğitim aracına dönüşümü desteklemektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Müminoğlu, Y. (2026). Raising environmental awareness through landscape design: A comparative document analysis of Germany, Latvia, and Turkiye. Turkish Journal of Forest Science, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1. https://doi.org/10.32328/turkjforsci.1905285

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Ahern, J. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 341–343. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.021
  2. Ak, B. (2024). Principles and applications of ecological landscape. Turkish Journal of Landscape Research, 2(7), 213–229.
  3. Akpınar, A. (2016). How is quality of urban green spaces associated with physical activity and health? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 16, 76–83. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.01.011
  4. Alsancak. (2025). Izmir’s historic factory has been turned into a culture and arts hub. Retrieved December 14, 2025, from https://www.trthaber.com/foto-galeri/izmirin-tarihi-fabrikasi-kultur-sanat-ussune-donustu
  5. Bakute, A., Grīnfelde, I., & Groosman, M. (2025). Hydrological modelling for sustainable rural and urban landscapes in Latvia. Landscape Architecture and Art, 27, 38–42. doi:10.22616/j.landarchart.2025.27.05
  6. Bunkše, E. V. (1999). Reality of rural landscape symbolism in the formation of a post-Soviet, postmodern Latvian identity. Journal of Geography, 53, 121–138.
  7. Carfora, A., Lucibelli, F., Di Lillo, P., Mazzucchiello, S. M., Saccone, G., Salvemini, M.,. Aceto, S. (2025). Genetic responses of plants to urban environmental challenges. Planta, 102–261. doi:10.1007/s00425-025-04678-1
  8. Chawla, L. (2007). Childhood experiences associated with care for the natural world: A theoretical framework for empirical results. Children, Youth and Environments, 17(4), 144–170.
  9. Costa, C. S., Šuklje Erjavec, I., & Mathey, J. (2008). Green spaces – a key resource for urban sustainability: The Green Keys approach for developing green spaces. Urbani Izziv, 19, 1–15.
  10. Cufalı, A. B., & Uslu, A. (2025). Landscape planning and design solutions within the scope of biodiversity in historical cities: A case study of Safranbolu city. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 26(3), 441–451. doi:10.18182/tjf.1607985
  11. Çakmak, M., Özden, F., & Uslu, A. (2021). Design approaches supporting biodiversity in urban areas, Ankara Keçiören Atatürk Botanical Park case. Turkish Journal of Landscape Research, 4(1), 13–27.
  12. Daugėlaitė, A., Doğan, A., & Gražulevičiūtė-Vileniškė, I. (2021). Characterizing sustainability aesthetics of buildings and environments: Methodological frame and pilot application to the hybrid environments. Landscape Architecture and Art, 19, 61–72. doi:10.22616/j.landarchart.2021.19.06
  13. Doğan, M. (2025). Post-endüstriyel peyzaj tasarımı: Duisburg Nord Parkı. GZT Arkitekt. Retrieved October 19, 2025, from https://www.gzt.com/arkitekt/post-endustriyel-peyzaj-tasarimi-duisburg-nord-parki-3579692
  14. Doğmuşöz, B., & Vardı Topal, H. (2024). Visual preferences of college students for an ecological design project in a campus environment. Kent Akademisi, 17(1), 88–108. doi:10.35674/kent.1366742
  15. Duru, M. A., Hoş, F., & Ersoy Tonyaloğlu, E. (2022). Evaluation of urban landscape with green infrastructure approach: The case of Çankaya / Ankara example. Artvin Coruh University Journal of Forestry Faculty, 23(1), 135–143. doi:10.17474/artvinofd.1097688
  16. Dyment, J. E., & Bell, A. C. (2008). Grounds for movement: Green school grounds as sites for promoting physical activity. Health Education Research, 23(6), 952–962. doi:10.1093/her/cym059
  17. Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3(4), 390–394. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149
  18. IBA. (2025). Internationale Bauausstellung Emscher Park. Alchetron. Retrieved November 13, 2025, from https://alchetron.com/-Internationale-Bauausstellung-Emscher-Park
  19. Ihle, T., Jahr, E., Martens, D., Muehlan, H., & Schmidt, S. (2024). Health effects of participation in the creation of urban green spaces. Sustainability, 16(12), 5000. doi:10.3390/su16125000
  20. Jankēviča, M. (2013). Evaluation of landscape ecological aesthetics of green spaces in Latvian large cities. Science–Future of Lithuania, 5(3), 208–215. doi:10.3846/mla.2013.38
  21. Kahveci, B., & Sandal Erzurumlu, G. (2023). Landscape design in university campuses; Nigde Omer Halisdemir University example. Peyzaj-Education, Science, Culture and Art Journal, 5(2), 113–123.
  22. Kahveci, B., & Yücel, M. (2023). Environmental awareness evaluation within the scope of noise pollution: The case of Adana-Çukurova district. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 11(12), 2452–2465. doi:10.24925/turjaf.v11i12.2452-2465.6570
  23. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. doi:10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
  24. Korkut, A., Kiper, T., & Üstün Topal, T. (2017). Ecological approaches in urban landscape design. Artium, 5(1), 14–26.
  25. Kosatica, M., Ziegler, E., & Buchstaller, I. (2024). From winding tower to Eiffel Tower (of the Ruhr Area): The symbolic economy of industrial signs. Multimodality & Society, 4(4), 402–432. doi:10.1177/26349795241288
  26. Krasny, M. E., & Tidball, K. G. (2010). Civic ecology: Linking social and ecological approaches in extension. Journal of Extension, 48(1), Article 1FEA1.
  27. Krasny, M. E., & Tidball, K. G. (2012). Civic ecology: A pathway for Earth stewardship in cities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(5), 267–273. doi:10.1890/110230
  28. Kupik, M., & Kader, Ş. (2011). Peyzaj mimarisinde tasarım ve proje uygulama. İBB Park Bahçe ve Yeşil Alanlar Daire Başkanlığı Yayınları.
  29. Lupp, G., Zingraff-Hamed, A., Huang, J., Oen, A., & Pauleit, S. (2020). Living labs – a concept for co-designing nature-based solutions. Sustainability, 13(1), 188. doi:10.3390/su13010188
  30. Majare, K. (2021). Sporta Pils Dārzi: The story of developing a community garden from nothing. STIR World. Retrieved May 12, 2024, from https://www.stirworld.com/
  31. Nassauer, J. I. (2011). Care and stewardship: From home to planet. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 321–323. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.022
  32. Nguyen-Dinh, N., & Zhang, H. (2025). How landscape preferences and emotions shape environmental awareness: Perspectives from university experiences. Sustainability, 17(7), 3161. doi:10.3390/su17073161
  33. Nitavska, N. (2023). Symbolic significance and cognitive dimension of the Latvian landscape. Landscape Architecture and Art, 22, 59–68. doi:10.22616/j.landarchart.2023.22.06
  34. Özdemir, A., Başal, M., & Aslan, F. (2010). Participatory planning at Mesa Koru: Toward a more sustainable future. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 4(1), 42–56.
  35. Prilenska, V. (2015). Roode Liias. Challenges of recent participatory urban design practices in Riga. Procedia Economics and Finance, 21, 88–96. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00154-9
  36. Samaniego, L., Kumar, R., Thober, S., Rakovec, O., Zink, M., Wanders, N.,. Warrach-Sagi, K. (2017). Toward seamless hydrologic predictions across spatial scales. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21(9), 4323–4346. doi:10.5194/hess-21-4323-2017
  37. Thwaites, K., & Simkins, I. (2007). Experiential landscape: An approach to people, place and space. Routledge.
  38. Trifa, R. M. (2018). Preservation and transformation: The role of industrial heritage in urban regeneration. Acta Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture, 61(3), 186–197.
  39. Ulus, A., & Özdemir, A. (2025). Investigation of plants used in landscape applications in urban green areas in terms of pollination: The case of Istanbul. The Journal of Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, 16(2), 100–116.
  40. Vizzarri, C. (2020). The refurbishment of abandoned industrial areas with adaptive re-use strategies: Analysis of decision-making models and design criteria. Journal of Urban Environment, 1(1), 15–28.
  41. Yıldız, N. E. (2020). Ecological landscape design in university campuses: Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University case. International Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research, 7(62), 3594–3604. doi:10.26450/jshsr.2183
  42. Yıldız, N. E., & Kahveci, B. (2025). Collaborative neighborhood park landscape design by university and local government: The İftiyan neighborhood case, Bor–Niğde. PEYZAJ-Education, Science, Culture and Art Journal, 7(2), 186–199.
  43. Carfora, A., Lucibelli, F., Di Lillo, P., Mazzucchiello, S. M., Saccone, G., Salvemini, M.,. Aceto, S. (2025). Genetic responses of plants to urban environmental challenges. Planta, 102–261. doi:10.1007/s00425-025-04678-1
  44. Samaniego, L., Kumar, R., Thober, S., Rakovec, O., Zink, M., Wanders, N.,. Warrach-Sagi, K. (2017). Toward seamless hydrologic predictions across spatial scales. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21(9), 4323–4346. doi:10.5194/hess-21-4323-2017