Begum AKOZ CEVRIMLI, Mehmet TOPCU, Hande Busra GEYİKLİ

İmaj Ögelerinin Sentaktik Okunabilirliği: Eskişehir Örneği

Bu çalışmada, Eskişehir’in imaj algısını ve sentaktik olarak okunabilirliğini ölçmek, imaj ögeleri ve sayısal okunabilirlik arasındaki ilişkiyi karşılaş- tırmalı analizlerle tartışmak amaçlanmıştır. Metodolojik olarak çalışma üç aşamadan oluşmaktadır. İlk olarak Lynch, Nasar ve Rapoport’un imaj ve kentsel mekân algısına yönelik yaklaşımları konseptinde bir anket hazırlanmış ve bu anket karşılıklı görüşme şeklinde halk ve uzmanlardan oluşan 60 kişilik bir gruba uygulanarak alınan cevaplar doğrultusunda kentin imaj haritası oluşturulmuştur. İkinci aşamada kentin aks haritası çizilmiş ve mekân sentaks metodolojisi kullanılarak aksiyel analiz yöntemiyle bütünleşme, bağlılık, anlaşılabilirlik ve sinerji parametreleri kentsel ölçekte analiz edilmiştir. Son aşamada ise imaj ögeleri, belirlenen sayısal parametreler bağlamında karşılaştırmalı olarak tartışılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, ilk sırada yol parametresinin algısı en yüksektir, nirengi ve düğüm noktası parametreleri yakın seviyede ve ikinci sıradadır, bölge para- metresi ise son sıradadır. Çalışma, imaj ögelerini hem detayda kategorize ederek her bir ögenin sayısal olarak değerlendirilmesine imkân vermesi açısından hem de imaj ögesinin algısının sayısal olarak hangi parametrede daha öncelikli olduğunu tartışabilmek adına farklı bir metodolojik yaklaşım ortaya koymaktadır.

Syntactic Legibility of Image Elements: Eskişehir Case

This study aims to measure the image perception and spatial legibility of Eskisehir city and to discuss the relationship between image elements and spatial legibility through comparative analysis. Methodologically, the study consists of three stages. (1) A questionnaire was prepared in line with Lynch, Nasar, and Rapoport’s approaches to image and urban space perception. This questionnaire was applied to a group of 60 consisting of ordinary people and experts in the form of mutual interviews, and an image map of the city was created as a result of the answers received. (2) An axial map of the city was drawn and integration, connectivity, intelligibility, and synergy parameters were analysed at an urban scale with the axial analysis method using space syntax methodology. (3) Image elements were discussed comparatively in the context of determining numerical parameters. As a result, the perception of the path parameter was the highest; the landmark and node parameters were close to one another and came second, and the district parameter was the last. The study proposes a different methodological approach in order to categorise the image elements in detail, allowing each element to be evaluated numeri- cally, and to discuss on which parameter the perception of the image element is numerically more important

PDF

___

Agael, F. and Özer, Ö. (2017). Human perception in the Libyan built environment: Al-Khums and Bani Walid cities as case studies. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 11(2):157–174.
Appleyard, D. (1970). Styles and methods of structuring a city. Environment and Behavior 2(1):100–117. https://doi. org/10.1177/001391657000200106
Bafna, S. (2003). Space syntax: A brief introduction to its log- ic and analytical techniques. Environment and Behavior 35(1):17–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502238863
Bilsel, F.C., Bilsel, S.G., and Bilsel, A.A. (1999). Kuramsal Yak- laşımlardan Kentsel Mekan Tasarımına. Çubuk M. (Ed), I. Ulusal Kentsel Tasarım Kongresi (pp. 58–70). M.S.Ü Mimarlık Fakültesi Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Bölümü, İstanbul.
Castells, M. (1983). The city and the grassroots: a cross-cultural theory of urban social movements. University of California Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for The Behavioral Science. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Çelen Öztürk, A. (2016). Eskişehir’in Geçmişteki ve Bugünkü Kent Belleğinin Zihin Haritaları Üzerinden Okuma Denemel- eri. İDEALKENT 7(20):856–880.
Dalton, R. and Bafna, S. (2003). The syntactical image of the city: a reciprocal definition of spatial elements and spatial syn- taxes. In: 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, 17 June 2003 - 19 June 2003, London. https://www.spacesyntax.net/ symposia-archive/SSS4/fullpapers/59Dalton-Bafnapaper.pdf
Ellis, P.D. (2010). The Essential Guide to Effect Size, Statistical Power, Meta Analysis and Interpretation Research Results. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Erçevik Sönmez, B., Erinsel Önder, D., 2019. The influence of GPS-based navigation systems on perception and image formation: A case study in urban environments. Cities 86, 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.12.018
Erdönmez, M.E. and Altan, A. (2005). Açık kamusal kent mekan- larının toplum ilişkilerindeki etkileri. Megaron 1(1):67–87.
Filomena, G., Verstegen, J.A., and Manley, E. (2019). A compu- tational approach to ‘The Image of the City’. Cities 89:14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.006
Golledge, R.G. (1997). Spatial behaviour: A geographic perspec- tive. Guilford Press.
Gohari, H. (2019). Structural analysis of the elements of Lynch’s image of the city based on space syntax. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Urban Design and Planning 172(4):141–158. doi:10.1680/jurdp.17.00025
Haq, S. (2002). Complex architectural settings: An investigation of spatial and cognitive variables through wayfinding behav- iour (Doctoral Dissertation). Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=5344940
Heft, H. (1983). Way-finding as the perception of informa- tion over time. Population and Environment 6(3):133–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01258956
Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine: a configurational theory of Architecture. Cambridge University Press.
Hillier, B. (1999). The hidden geometry of deformed grids: Or, why space syntax works, when it looks as though it shouldn’t. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26(2):169– 191. https://doi.org/10.1068/b4125
Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cam- bridge: Press syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Hillier, B., Hanson, J., & Graham, H. (1987). Ideas are in things: An application of the space syntax method to discovering house genotypes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 14(4), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1068/b140363
Jiang, B. (1998). A space syntax approach to spatial cognition in urban environments. Paper presented at the Position paper for NSF-funded research workshop Cognitive Models of Dy- namic Phenomena and Their Representations (pp. 59 (1–22)).
Jiao, J., Holmes, M., and Griffin, G.P. (2018). Revisiting image of the city in cyberspace: Analysis of spatial Twitter mes- sages during a special event. Journal of Urban Technology 25(3):65–82.
Kim, J. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2015). Measuring emotions in real time: Implications for tourism experience design. Journal of Travel Research 54(4):419–429. https://doi. org/10.1177/0047287514550100
Kim, Y.O. (1999). “Spatial configuration, spatial cognition and spatial behaviour: the role of architectural intelligibility in shaping spatial experience.” PhD diss., University of London.
Kim, Y.O. (2001). “The Role of Spatial Configuration in Spatial Cognition”, J. Peponis, J. Wineman, S. Bafna (Eds.), Proceed- ings, 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta.
Kim, Y.O. and Penn, A. (2004). “Linking the Spatial Syntax of Cog- nitive Maps to the Spatial Syntax of the Environment”. Envi- ronment and Behavior 36:4.
Koseoglu, E. and Onder, D.E. (2011). Subjective and objective dimensions of spatial legibility. Procedia-Social and Behav- ioral Sciences 30:1191–1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sb- spro.2011.10.231
Kubat, A.S. (1997). The morphological characteristics of Anato- lian fortified towns. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 24(1):95–123. https://doi.org/10.1068/b240095
Long, Y., Baran, P.K., and Moore, R. (2007). The Role of Space Syntax in Spatial Cognition. Paper presented at the Proceed- ings of the Sixth International Space Syntax Symposium (pp. 129 (1–6)). Istanbul, Turkey.
Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Marcus, L., Giusti, M., and Barthel, S. (2016). Cognitive affor- dances in sustainable urbanism: contributions of space syn- tax and spatial cognition. Journal of Urban Design 21(4):439– 452. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1184565
Meenar, M., Afzalan, N., and Hajrasouliha, A. (2019). Analyz- ing Lynch’s city imageability in the digital age. Journal of Planning Education and Research https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0739456X19844573
Morello, E. and Ratti, C. (2009). A digital image of the city: 3D isovists in Lynch’s urban analysis. Environment and Plan- ning B: Planning and Design 36(5):837–853. https://doi. org/10.1068/b34144t
Nasar, J. L., (1990). The evaluative image of the city. Journal of the American Planning Association 56:1, 41–53, DOI: 10.1080/01944369008975742,
Ocakçı, M. (2016). Kent İmgesi (İmajı) - Kentsel Planlama An- siklopedik Sözlük (M. Ersoy Ed.). Sarıyer/İstanbul: Ninova Yayıncılık Tic. Ltd. Şti.
Ozbil Torun, A., Yesiltepe, D., Erten, S., Ozer, O., Gurleyen, T., and Zunbuloglu, E. (2020). Measuring the relationship between spatial configuration, diversity and user behaviour: A Post Occupancy Evaluation study in Istanbul’s peripheral districts. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning 1(1):84–102. https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2020.v1i1006
Önder, D.E. and Gigi, Y. (2010). Reading urban spaces by the space-syntax method: A proposal for the South Haliç Region. Cities 27(4):260–271.
Paül I Agustí, D., Rutllant, J., Lasala Fortea, J., 2019. Differences in the perception of urban space via mental maps and Heart Rate Variation (HRV). Applied Geography 112, 102084.. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.102084
Penn, A., Hillier, B., Banister, D., and Xu, J. (1998). Configurational modelling of urban movement networks. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 25(1):59–84. https://doi. org/10.1068/b250059
Penn, A. (2003). Space syntax and spatial cognition: or why the axial line? Environment and behaviour 35(1):30–65.
Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form. New York, 10. Sartain, A.Q., North, A.J., Strange, J.R., and Chapman, H.M. (1958). Psychology: Understanding human behaviour. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Southworth, M. (1985). Shaping the city image. Journal of Plan- ning Education and Research 5(1):52–59. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0739456X8500500107
Tang, Y., Liang, S., and Yu, R. (2018). Theoretical and practical influences of Kevin Lynch in China. Journal of the American Planning Association 84(3–4):293–305. https://doi.org/10.1 080/01944363.2018.1521300
Tomko, M. and Winter, S. (2013). Describing the functional spatial structure of urban environments. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 41:177–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compenvurbsys.2013.05.002
Topcu, K.D. and Topcu, M. (2012). Visual presentation of mental images in urban design education: cognitive maps. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences 51:573–582.
Varoudis, T. (2012). DepthmapX multi-platform spatial network analysis software. Version 0.30 OpenSource. http://varoudis. github. io/depthmapX Zhang, T., Chiradia, A., Zhuang, Y., 2013. In the intelligibility mazeof space syntax: a space syntax analysis of toy models, mazesand labyrinths. In: Kim, Y.O., Park, H.T., Seo, K.W. (Eds.), Proceedings of 9th International Space Syntax symposium. Sejong University, Seoul, pp. 82.1–82.17