Journals / Kastamonu Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi / 2012 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 3

Differences in Visual Perception of Abies nordmanniana subsp. bornmulleriana Mattf under Snow Load

Pages
79–85
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 respondents’ socio-economic structure’s effects on human perception were researched as well

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims at determining the visual values of solitary and group fir trees in Kastamonu city and the differences in their visual perceptions according to seasons.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose selected trees in Ilgaz National Park were photographed in two different time periods (in snowy days of 2012 and in other days).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The respondents’ socio-economic structure’s effects on human perception were researched as well
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Visual perception · Bornmüllerian fir · emphasis on physical characteristics

Abstract

This study aims at determining the visual values of solitary and group fir trees in Kastamonu city and the differences in their visual perceptions according to seasons. For this purpose selected trees in Ilgaz National Park were photographed in two different time periods (in snowy days of 2012 and in other days). Four different fir tree images were used in this study. These tree images are (i) image of a fir tree under snow load, (ii) ordinary image of a fir tree, (iii) image of a composition created by the fir trees under snow load, and (iv) ordinary image of a composition created by the fir trees. These photographs were evaluated by Kastamonu University Forestry Faculty students by using Semantic Differential Scale Technique. According to this technique ten pairs of opposing adjectives were chosen for the evaluation the visual quality of the figures. Consequently, in this study the differences in their visual perceptions according to seasons were determined. In addition, differences on perception of physical characteristics such as form, branching structure, texture, trunk, and foliage were also investigated. The respondents’ socio-economic structure’s effects on human perception were researched as well

🔖

Cite This Article

SAKICI, Ç., AYAN, E., ÖZDİGER, Z. P. (2012). Differences in Visual Perception of Abies nordmanniana subsp. bornmulleriana Mattf under Snow Load. Kastamonu Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 3, 79–85. https://ajindex.com/articles/216467

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Akbar, K.F., Hale, W.G.H. and Headley, A.D. 2003. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside Landscape and Urban Plann. 63:139-144. in vegetation northern England. Ansin, R., Özkan, Z.C. 1997. Tohumlu Bitkiler (Spermatophyta) Odunsu Taksonlar, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi. Trabzon. Arslan, M., Çelem, H. 2001. Ankara’nın Egzotik Ağaç ve Çalıları, Tübitak, Türkiye Tarımsal TOGTAGTARP- 2125, Ankara.
  2. Projesi Yayınları,
  3. Bergen, S.D., Ulbricht, C.A., Fridley, J.L. and Ganter, M.A. 1995. The validity of computer generated graphic images of forest landscapes. Journal of Environmental Psych. 15:135-146. Biénabe, E. and Hearne, R.R. 2006. Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic environmental services payments. Forest Policy and Econ. 9 (4):335-348. a framework of Bulut, Z. 2006. The Recreational Tourism Potential of Kemaliye (Erzincan) and Nearby within an Alternative Tourism Framework. Ph.D. thesis, Graduate College of Atatürk University, Erzurum. of Bulut, Z. and Yilmaz, H. 2008. Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality assessment method: A case study for Kemaliye (Erzincan/Turkey). Environmental Monitoring and Assess. 141(1-3): 121-129.
  4. Bulut, Z. and Yilmaz, H. 2009. Determination of waterscape beauties through visual quality assessment method. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 154:459-468.
  5. Habron, D. 1998. Visual perception of wild land in Scotland. Landscape and Urban Plan. 42 (1):45-56.
  6. Herzog, T.R. 1985. A cognitive analysis of preference Experimental Psych. 9:27-43.
  7. Journal of Hunziker, M. and Kienast, F. 1999. Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty - A prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landscape Ecol. 14 (2):161-176.
  8. Kaplan, A., Taşkın, T. and Önenç, A. 2006. Assessing the visual quality of rural and urban- fringed landscapes surrounding livestock farms. Biosystems Engin. 95 (3):437-448.
  9. Acar, C. and Sakıcı, Ç. 2008. Assessing landscape perception of urban rocky habitats. Building and Environ. 43 (6):1153-1170.
  10. Karahan, F. 2003. Landscape Planning of Erzurum-Rize Opportunity for Usability as Landscape View Road. Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate College of Atatürk University, Erzurum. and Its Kearney, A.R., Bradley, G.A., Petrich, C.H., Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. and Simpson-Colebank, D. 2008. Public perception as support for scenic quality regulation in a nationally treasured landscape. Landscape and Urban Plan. 87(2):117- 128. Küller, R., 1979. Semant