ÇİĞDEM SAKICI, ELİF AYAN, Zeynep Pınar ÖZDİGER

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

Anahtar Kelimeler:

-

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

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

Keywords:

Visual perception, Bornmüllerian fir emphasis on physical characteristics,

PDF

___

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. Projesi Yayınları,
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.
Bulut, Z. and Yilmaz, H. 2009. Determination of waterscape beauties through visual quality assessment method. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 154:459-468.
Habron, D. 1998. Visual perception of wild land in Scotland. Landscape and Urban Plan. 42 (1):45-56.
Herzog, T.R. 1985. A cognitive analysis of preference Experimental Psych. 9:27-43. 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.
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.
Acar, C. and Sakıcı, Ç. 2008. Assessing landscape perception of urban rocky habitats. Building and Environ. 43 (6):1153-1170.
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. Semantic Evaluation of Perceived Systems, 9(67). Man Environment
Meitner, M.J. 2004. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon: Relating perceptual judgments to location. Landscape and Urban Plan. 68:3-13.
Misgav, A. 2000. Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landscape and Urban Plan. 48:143-159.
Osgood C.E., May W.H., Miron M.S., 1975. Cross-cultural universals of affective meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press
Purcell, A.T. and Lamb, R.J. 1998. Preference and Landscape and Urban Plan. 42 (1):57-66. ecological approach.
Ribe, R.G. 2005. Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in vista views: The interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape. Landscape and Urban Plan. 73 (4):277-293.
Schroeder, H.W. 1991. Preference and meaning of arboretum landscapes: Combining quantitative and qualitative data. Journal of Environmental Psych. 11 (3):231-248.
Sheppard, S. and Picard, P. 2006. Visual- quality impacts of forest pest activity at the landscape level: A synthesis of published knowledge and research needs. Landscape and Urban Plan. 77 (4):321-342.
Sullivan, W.C. and Lovell, S.T. 2006. Improving the visual quality of commercial development at the rural-urban fringe. Landscape and Urban Plan. 77 (1-2):152-166.
Şevik, H., 2011. Dallanma Karakterleri Bakımından Noel Ağacı Üretimine Uygun Uludağ Göknarı Popülasyonlarının Belirlenmesi, Kastamonu Üniversitesi, Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1): 102-107.
Tahvanainen, L., Tyrväinen, L., Ihalainen, M., Vuorela, N. and Kolehmainen, O. 2001. Forest management and public perceptions visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Plan. 53 (1-4): 53-70.
Tzolova, G.V. 1995. An experiment in greenway analysis and assessment: the Danube River. Landscape and Urban Plan. 33 (1-3):283- 294.