SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eskişehir Technical University Journal of Science and Technology A - Applied Sciences and Engineering / 2018 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 2

Residents’ Perceptions of Riverine Landscape Changes; Case Study of Beykoz Stream/ Istanbul

Sahar POUYA
Fatma AYÇİM TÜRER BAŞKAYA
Pages
253–266
Publication Date
2018-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️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 results indicated that there is valuable information in perception of the residents about natural corridors like the streams that should be evaluated before any restorative operation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Residents are an inevitable part of any urban plan and knowing about their perceptions is a key factor to change the urban areas.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This issue is of greater importance in urban river enhancement projects, as the rivers are associated with various economic, cultural, and social issues of the residents.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicated that there is valuable information in perception of the residents about natural corridors like the streams that should be evaluated before any restorative operation.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Riverine Landscape · Resident’s preference · Perception

Abstract

Residents are an inevitable part of any urban plan and knowing about their perceptions is a key factor to change the urban areas. This issue is of greater importance in urban river enhancement projects, as the rivers are associated with various economic, cultural, and social issues of the residents. The main goal of the present research is to assess riverine landscape of Beykoz in Istanbul after bearing tremendous changes. The riverine landscape is surveyed considering the natural features, physical elements, and the people’s perception in particular. The main part is based on interview with the local residents to achieve their comments about the stream changes and the ecological and cultural memory related the stream. The results indicated that there is valuable information in perception of the residents about natural corridors like the streams that should be evaluated before any restorative operation. Changing the stream channel and its bank with no care of the residents’ dimension will disturb the place identity, valuable belongingness, and the unique meanings associated with the rivers. Visual access to the stream, the stream’s natural landscape with native vegetation, its biodiversity, its sound and color are the factors that should be maintained during the urban development projects.

🔖

Cite This Article

POUYA, S., BAŞKAYA, F. A. T. (2018). Residents’ Perceptions of Riverine Landscape Changes; Case Study of Beykoz Stream/ Istanbul. Eskişehir Technical University Journal of Science and Technology A - Applied Sciences and Engineering, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 2, 253–266. https://ajindex.com/articles/196806

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Smith, B., Clifford, N.J., & Mant, J., (2014). The changing nature of river restoration. Journal of WIREs Water. 1, pp. 249–261
  2. Tockner, K., Pusch, M., Borchard, D., & Lorang, M.S., Multiple stressors in coupled river floodplain ecosystems. Journal of Freshwater Biol. 55, 2010. pp. 135–151
  3. Westling, E. L., Surridge, B. W., Sharp, L., & Lerner, D. N. Making sense of landscape change: Long-term perceptions among local residents following river restoration. Journal of hydrology, 519, 2014. 2613-2623
  4. Selman, P., Carter, C., Lawrence, A., & Morgan, C., Re-connecting with a recovering river through imaginative engagement. Ecol Soc. 15 (3), 2010. pp.18 [5] Ulrich, R. S. “Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment”. In I. Altman, & J. F. Wohl will (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment, New York: Plenum Press, 1983. pp. 85–125
  5. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1989
  6. Terry C., D. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and urban planning. 54, 2001. 267-281
  7. Wu. Y., Bishop. I, Hossain, H. & Sposito, V., Using GIS in landscape visual quality assessment, Applied GIS, Volume2, Number 3, Monash University Epress. 2006
  8. Lothian, A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?. Landscape and urban planning. 44, 1999. 177-198
  9. Gobster, PH. An ecological aesthetics for forest landscape management. Landscape, J. 18(1), (1999). 54-6 [11] Silva, B., J.; Saraiva., G., M., Ramos, L., I., & Bernardo, F., Methodology of aesthetic evaluation of rivers in urban context, Urban River Rehabilitation Conference Dresden, September, 2005. p. 1-9
  10. Proshansky., H.M. The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10, 1978. pp. 147-169
  11. Eden, S., & Tunstall, S., Ecological versus social restoration? How urban river restoration challenges but also fails to challenge the science – policy nexus in the United Kingdom. Environ. Plann. C 24, 2006. 661–680
  12. Nassauer, J.I., Kosek, S.E., & Corry, R.C., Meeting public expectations with ecological innovation in riparian landscapes. Journal. Am. Water Resource. 37, 2001. 1–5
  13. Nilsson, C., Jansson, R., Malmqvist, B., Robert, J., & Naiman, R.J., Restoring riverine landscapes: the challenge of identifying priorities, reference states, and techniques. Ecol. Soc.