Botanik Bahçelerinde Ziyaretçi Tercihlerinin Belirlenmesi 'Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi Örneği

Kentsel yeşil alanların önemli bir parçası olan botanik bahçeleri, nesli tükenme tehlikesi altındaki bitkilerin koruma altına alındığı, ziyaretçilerini doğrudan ve dolaylı eğiten ve birçok rekreatif imkân sunan önemli merkezlerdir. Çalışma alanı olarak ziyaretçilerine doğal hayatla buluşma fırsatı sunan Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik bahçesi seçilmiştir. Çalışmada botanik bahçesi ziyaretçilerinin mevsimsel-mekânsal tercihlerini ve botanik bahçesini kullanım amaçlarını belirlemek amacıyla anket çalışması, peyzaj tercihlerini belirlemek amacıyla da görsel anket çalışması yapılmıştır. Anket çalışması sonbahar ve ilkbahar mevsimlerinde toplam 311 kişiyle ve görsel anket çalışması toplam 150 kişiyle alanda yüz yüze yürütülmüştür. Ek olarak, nesnel bir değerlendirme ortaya koymak amacıyla da ziyaretçiler tarafından tercih edilen fotoğrafların fraktal analizi yapılmıştır. Ziyaretçilerin Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesini daha çok kalabalık şehirden uzaklaşmak ve stresten arınmak (%40.5), dışarıda güzel bir gün geçirmek (%14.1) gibi rekreasyonel nedenlerle ziyaret ettiği, mekânsal tercihleri ve peyzaj tercihlerinin de mevsimsel olarak değiştiği sonucu elde edilmiştir. Fraktal analiz sonuçlarında, ziyaretçiler tarafından en çok tercih edilen görüntülerin fraktal boyut değerlerinin yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Ziyaretçi tercihleri ve motivasyonlarının belirlenmesi, botanik bahçesi yöneticileri için mevcut ve geleceğe yönelik gelişim alanlarının planlanması ve tasarımında önem arz etmektedir.

Determination of Visitor Preferences in Botanic Gardens 'Case of Nezahat Gokyigit Botanic Garden

Botanic gardens as important parts of urban green spaces are substantial centers where endangered plant species are protected and visitors are trained directly-indirectly, moreover they also offer many recreative opportunities. Nezahat Gökyigit Botanic Garden is choosen as a study area that offers to visitors chance to connect with natural life. In this study, questionnaire is prepared to determine visitors' intended use of botanic garden and their seasonal-spatial preferences and visual questionnaire is prepared determine to visitors' landscape preferences. Questionnaires are conducted face-to-face with total 311 people and visual questionnaires conducted with total 150 people in spring and autumn term. In addition, we were made a fractal analysis of preferred photographs by the visitors to reveal an objective assessment. Results showed that visitors mostly visited botanic garden recreational motivatioans like get away from busy city and stress (40.5%), spend a nice day out (14.1%) and also visitors' spatial preferences and landscape preferences can change according to seasons. In fractal analysis results, it has been seen that fractal dimension values of most preferred images by visitors were high too. Determine the visitors' preferences and their motivations are crucial for botanical garden managers to plan and design current and future development areas.

PDF

___

Akbar, K.F., Hale, W.H.G., Headley, A.D. 2003. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in Northern England. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63, 139-144.

Altınay, B., Anşin, R., Bakırcı, A., Bayındır, D., Bilgin, M., Çıngay, B., Denizyaran, A., Disperati, E.E., Gül, S., Gülenç, F., Güner, A., Kanoğlu, S.S., Kılıç, C.S., Kuşoğlu, B., Öcal, Ş., Öztekin, M., Yüzbaşıoğlu, S. 2011. Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi gezi rehberi. Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi Yayınları, ISBN: 978-605-60425-5-3.

Arnberger, A., Eder, R. 2015. Are urban visitors' general preferences for green-spaces similar to their preferences when seeking stress relief? Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14 (4), 872-882.

Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Hughes, K. 2008. Environmental awareness, interests and motives Implications Tourism Mangement, 29, 439-444.

Barrosa, F.L., Pinto-Correia, T., Ramos, I.L., Surova, D., Menezes, H. 2012. Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies: photo-based questionnaires in the mediterranean context, Landscape and Urban Planning, 104, 329-342.

Bell, S. (2004). Elements of visual design in the landscape. 2nd edn., Spon Press, London and New York.

Bennet, E.S., Swasey, J.E. 1996. Perceived stress reduction in urban public gardens. HortTechnology, 6 (2), 125-128.

Chen, B., Adimo, O.A., Bao, Z. 2009. Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban gren space from the users' perspective: The case of Hangzhou Flower Garden, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 93, 76-82.

Clay, G.R., Daniel, T.C. 2000. Scenic landscape assessment: The effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49 (1-2), 1-13.

Connell, J. 2004. The of human pleasures: The characteristics and motivations of garden visitors Management, 25, 229-247.

Connell, J., Meyer, D. 2004. Modelling the visitor experience in the gardens of Great Britain, Current Issues in Tourism, 7 (3), 183- 216.

Crilley, G., Hills, J., Cairncross, G., Moskwa, E. 2010. Identifying visitor service quality in Australian regional botanic gardens. Annals of Leisure Research, 13 (3), 476-496. Çakçı, I., Çelem, H. 2009. Kent parklarında görsel peyzaj algısının değerlendirilmesi. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 15 (1), 88-95.

Ediz, Ö., Çağdaş, G. 2005. Mimari tasarımda fraktal kurguya dayalı üretken bir yaklaşım. İTÜ Dergisi/a Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 4(1), 71-83.

Escobedo, F. J., Kroeger, T., Wagner, J. E. 2011. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing disservices. Environmental Pollution,159 (8), 2078-2087.

Frankhauser, P. 1998a. The fractal approach. A new tool for the spatial analysis of urban agglomerations. Population: An English Selection, 10 (1), 205-240.

Frankhauser, P. 1998b. Fractal geometry of urban patterns and their morphogenesis. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2 (2), 127-145.

Fuller, R.A., Irvine, K.N., Devine-Wright, P., Britain. Tourism ecosystem services and Warren, P.H., Gaston, K. J. 2007.Psychological benefits of green space increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3, 390-394.

Groenewegen, P., van den Berg, A., de Vries, S., Verheij, R. 2006. Vitamin G: Effects of green space on health, well-being, and social safety. BMC Public Health, 6(1),149.

He, H., Chen, J. 2011. Preliminary research on the visiting motivation and satisfaction of visitors to Chinese botanical gardens. Biodiversity Science, 19, 589-596.

He, H., Chen, J. 2012. Educational and enjoyment benefits of visitor education centers at botanical gardens. Biological Conservation, 149, 103-112.

Kalıpsız, A. 1981. İstatistik Yöntemler. İÜ Orman Fakültesi, Yayın No: 2837, OF Yayın No:294, İstanbul.

James, P., Tzoulas, K., Adams, M.D., Barber, A., Box, J., Breuste, J., Elmqvist, T., Frith, M., Gordon, C., Greening, K.L., Handley, J., Haworth, S., Kazmierczak, A.E., Johnston, M., Korpela, K., Moretti, M., Niemelä, J., Pauleit, S., Roe, M.H., Sadler, J.P., Ward Thompson, C. 2009. Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 8, 65-75.

Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y. 2006. Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environmental Management, 38 (3), 338-349.

Karjalainen, preferences for forest regeneration and field afforestation--four case studies in Finland. Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Biosciences, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences and Finnish Forest Research Institute, December. Kamierczak, A. 2013. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landscape Urban Planning, 109, 31-44.

Kaya, H.S., Bölen, F. 2011. Kentsel dokudaki yöntemiyle incelenmesi. İTÜ Dergisi / A Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 10 (1), 39-50.

Kösa, S., Atik, M. 2013. Bitkisel peyzaj tasarımında renk ve form; çınar (Platanus orientalis) ve sığla (Liquidambar orientalis) kullanımında peyzaj mimarlığı öğrencilerinin tercihleri. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 14 (1), 13-24.

Madureira, H., Nunes, F., Oliveira, J.V., Cormier, L., Madureira, T. 2015. Urban residents' beliefs concerning green space benefits in four cities in France and Portugal. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14, 56- 64.

Oppenheim, A.N. 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. 2nd ed. Printer, London.

Packer, J., Ballantyne, R. 2002. Motivational factors and the visitor experience: a comparison of three sites. Curator, 45 (3), 183-198.

Peitgen, H.O., Jürgens, H., Saupe, D. 2004.Chaos and fractals: New Frontiers of Science: Springer Verlag Press.

Qin, J., Zhou, X., Sun, C., Lengd, H., Lian, Z. 2013. Influence of green spaces on environmental satisfaction and physiological status of urban residents. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 12, 490-497.

Ruelle, C., Halleux, J-M., Teller, J. 2013. Landscape quality and brownfieldregeneration: a community investigation approach inspired by landscape preference studies, Landscape Research, 38 (1), 75-99.

Sander, H.A., Chang Zhao, C. 2015. Urban green and blue: Who values what and where? Land Use Policy, 42, 194-209

Sarı, D., Karaşah, B. 2015. Hatila VadisiMilli Parkı'nda (Artvin) yer alan farklı vejetasyon tiplerinin görsel değerlendirmesi üzerine bir çalışma. Türkiye Ormancılık Dergisi, 16 (1), 65-74.

Simonic, T. 2006. Urban landscape as are storative environment: preferences and design considerations. Acta Agriculturae Slovenica, 87 (2), 325-332.

Song, X., Lv, X., Li, C. 2015. Willingness and motivation of residents to pay for conservation of urban green spaces in Jinan, China, Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35, 89-94.

Spehar, B., Clifford, C.W.G., Newell, B.R.,Taylor, R.P. 2003. Universal aesthetic of fractals. Computers and Graphics, 27, 813- 820.

Tempesta, T. 2010. The perception of agrarian historical landscapes: A study of the Veneto plain in Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97 (4), 258-272.

Todorova, A., Asakawa, S., Aikoh, T. 2004. Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69 (4), 403- 416.

Tyrväinen, L., Mäkinen, K., Schipperijn, J. 2007. Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79 (1), 5-9.

Tzoulas, K., James, P. 2010. Peoples use of, and concerns about, green space networks: a case study of Birchwood, Warrington New Town, UK. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 9, 8.

URL1, 2015. http://www.ngbb.org.tr/tr/.

Vries, S., Groot, M., Boers, J. 2012. Eyesores in sight: quantifying the impact of man-made elements on the scenic beauty Dutch landscapes. Landscape Urban and Planning, 105, 118-127.

Ward, C.D., Parker, C.M., Shackleton, C.M. 2010. The use and appreciation of botanical gardens as urban green spaces in South Africa. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 9, 49-55.

Wassenberg, C.L., Goldenberg, M.A., Soule, K.E. 2015. Benefits of botanical garden visitation: A means-end study. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14, 148-155.

Willison, J., Greene, J. 1994. Environmental education in botanic gardens: Guidelines for developing ındividual strategies. Botanic Gardens Conservation International, UK.

Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J., Newell, J.P. 2014. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities 'just green enough'. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234-244.

Yabiku, S.T., Casagrande, D.G., FarleyMetzger, E., 2008. Preferences for landscape choice in a southwestern desert city, Environment and Behavior, 40 (3), 382-400.