Dergiler / Anadolu Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi :A-Uygulamalı Bilimler ve Mühendislik / 2018 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 2

RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF RIVERINE LANDSCAPE CHANGES; CASE STUDY OF BEYKOZ STREAM/ İSTANBUL

Sayfa
253–266
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Visual access to the stream, the stream’s natural landscape with nativevegetation, its biodiversity, its sound, and color are the factors that should be maintained during the urban river projects.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Residents are an inevitable part of the urban projects.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Thus, knowing about their perceptions and preferences is a key factorin conducting any changes in the urban environment.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Visual access to the stream, the stream’s natural landscape with nativevegetation, its biodiversity, its sound, and color are the factors that should be maintained during the urban river projects.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Residents are an inevitable part of the urban projects. Thus, knowing about their perceptions and preferences is a key factorin conducting any changes in the urban environment. 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 presentresearch is to assess the riverine landscape of Beykoz in İstanbul after bearing tremendous changes. The riverine landscape issurveyed considering the natural features, physical elements, and the people’s perception in particular. The main part is basedon the interview with the local residents to achieve their comments about the stream changes and their ecological and culturalmemories attached to the site. The results indicate that there is valuable information in residents’ perceptions about naturalcorridors like the streams that should be evaluated before any restorative or enhancement operations. Changing the streamchannel and its bank with no care of the residents’ dimension will disturb the place identity, sense of belongingness, and theunique meanings associated with the urban rivers. Visual access to the stream, the stream’s natural landscape with nativevegetation, its biodiversity, its sound, and color are the factors that should be maintained during the urban river projects.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

BAŞKAYA, F. A. T., POUYA, S. (2022). RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF RIVERINE LANDSCAPE CHANGES; CASE STUDY OF BEYKOZ STREAM/ İSTANBUL. Anadolu Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi :A-Uygulamalı Bilimler ve Mühendislik, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 2, 253–266. https://ajindex.com/articles/438214

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Smith B, Clifford N J, Mant J. The changing nature of river restoration. Journal of WIREs Water. 2014; 1: pp. 249–261
  2. Tockner K, Pusch M, Borchard D, Lorang MS. Multiple stressors in coupled river floodplain ecosystems. Journal of Freshwater Biol. 2010; 55: pp. 135–151
  3. Westling EL, Surridge BW, Sharp L, Lerner DN, Making sense of landscape change: Long-term perceptions among local residents following river restoration. Journal of hydrology. 2014; 519: pp. 2613-2623
  4. Selman P, Carter C, Lawrence A, Morgan C. Re-connecting with a recovering river through imaginative engagement. Ecol Soc. 2010; 15: pp.18
  5. Ulrich RS. 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
  6. Kaplan R, Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1989
  7. Buijs AE, Elands BHM, Langers F. No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences, Landscape and Urban Planning, 2009; 91: pp. 113‐123
  8. Swanwick C. Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape Land Use, Policy 26S S62-S75. 2009
  9. Terry CD. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and urban planning. 2001; 54: 267-281
  10. Wu Y, Bishop I, Hossain H, Sposito V. Using GIS in landscape visual quality assessment, Applied GIS, Volume2, Number 3, Monash University Epress. 2006
  11. 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. 1999; 44: pp.177-198
  12. Gobster, PH. An ecological aesthetics for forest landscape management. Landscape, J. 18(1), (1999). 54-6 [13] Silva BJ, Saraiva GM, Ramos LI, Bernardo F. Methodology of aesthetic evaluation of rivers in urban context, Urban River Rehabilitation Conference Dresden, International Conference of Urban River Rehabilitation, Work Package 11 September, 2005; pp. 1-9, arrived from www.urbem.net/wp11/wp11_conference.pdf [14] Proshansky HM. The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior. 1978; 10: pp. 147-169
  13. Martínez-Álvarez P, Bannan B. An Exploration of Hybrid Spaces for Place-Based Geomorphology With Latino Bilingual Children. Journal of Geoscience Education, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, 2014; 62: p. 104
  14. Eden S, Tunstall S.