Abstract
Kemaliye (Erzincan/Turkey) is the member of European Association of Historic Towns and Regions. The aim of this study was to reveal the visual richness of the town; to identify the relationship between landscape spatial pattern and visual quality of the landscape and to offer some suggestions for the future planning in regarding to these visual beauties. The visual quality assessment method was used in this study. The results of the study revealed three landscape types that have the highest visual quality. Among those, the highest one is urban scenery 3 (US3; VQP = 5.9400), the second is geological structure scenery 5 (GSS 5; VQP = 5.9200) and the third natural scenery 3 (NS3; VQP = 5.9133). Visual quality assessment showed that urban pattern, geological structure and natural resources of the region also have visual value. The relationships between landscape spatial pattern and visual quality of landscape indicated that certain characteristics of landscape affected the quality. For instance, as the texture level decreased in natural landscapes and as the green areas increased in geological structure, visual preferences ratio increased. Some suggestions were also made regarding the visual resources use in the region.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acar, C., & Kurdoğlu, B. Ç. (2005). Visual quality evaluation in Kaçkar Mointains. Sum on protected natural areas. Isparta, Turkey: Süleyman Demirel University September 8–10, 2005.
Acar, C., Kurdoğlu, B., Kurdoğlu, O., & ve Acar, H. (2006). Public preferences for visual quality and management in Kaçkar Mountains National Park (Turkey). The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 13(6), 499–512.
Amir, S., & Gidalizon, E. (1990). Expert-based method fort he evaluation of visual absorption capacity of the landscape. Journal of Environmental Management, 30, 251–263.
Angileri, V., & Toccolini, A. (1993). The assessment of visual quality as a tool for the conservation of rural landscape diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 24(1–4), 105–112.
Anonim. (2005a). Kemaliye İlçesi İklim Verileri (1984–1990). Ankara: Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü, Araştırma ve Bilgi İşlem Daire Başkanlığı.
Anonim. (2005b). 2000 Genel Nüfus Sayımı, Nüfusun Sosyal ve Ekonomik Nitelikleri, 24 Erzincan, T. C. Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü.
Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J. F., Canas-Madueno, J. A., & Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004). Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 115–125.
Bergen, S. D., Ulbricht, C. A., Fridley, J. L., & Ganter, M. A. (1995). The validity of computer generated graphic images of forest landscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 135–146.
Clay, G. R., & Smidt, R. K. (2004). Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 66(4), 239–255.
Daniel, T. C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1–4), 267–281.
Daniel, T. C., & Vining, J. (1983). Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In I. Altman, & J. F. Wohwill (Eds.) Behaviour and the Natural Environment (pp. 39–83). New York: Plenum.
De Val, G. F., Atauri, J. A., & De Lucio, J. V. (2006). Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(4), 393–407.
Hammitt, W. E., Patterson, M. E., & Noe, F. P. (1994). Identifying nad predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 29(2–39), 171–183.
Hands, D. E., & Brown, R. D. (2002). Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58(1), 57–70.
Hull, R. B., & McCarthy, M. M. (1988). Change in the landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15(3–4), 265–278.
Hull, R. B., & Stewart, W. P. (1992). Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(2), 101–114.
Hunziker, M., & Kienast, F. (1999). Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty-A prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landscape Ecology , 14(2), 161–176.
Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (2002). Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 1–11.
Kane, P. S. (1981). Assessing landscape attractiveness: A comparative test of two new method. Applied Geography, 1, 77–96.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Brown, T. (1989). Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment & Behavior, 21(5), 509–530.
Karahan, F. (2003). Landscape planning of Erzurum-Rize highway cooridor and its opportunity for usebility as landscape view road (p. 210). Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate College of Atatürk University, Erzurum.
Karahan, F., & Yılmaz, H. (2004a). Evaluation of Erzurum-Rize hihgway cooridor for ecotourism purposes. II. International tourism, environment and culture symposium pp. 225–262. İzmir, Turkey: Proceeding Book.
Karahan, F., & Yılmaz, H. (2004b). (203–205). Visual quality analysis of Erzurum highway cooridor. Landscape Architecture 2. Congress. İzmir, Turkey: Proceeding Book.
Karjalainen, E., & Komulainen, M. (1999). The visual effect of felling on small and mediu –scale landscapes in North-eastern Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 55, 167–181.
Krause, C. L. (2001). Our visual landscape: Managing the landscape under special consideration of visual aspects. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1–4), 239–254.
Koç, N., & Şahin, Ş. (1999). Urban Landscape Planning. University of Ankara, Faculty of Agriculture, No: 1509 (p. 210), Ankara.
Lambe, R. A. (1986). Commercial highway landscape reclamation: A participatory approach. Landscape and Planning, 24(4), 353–385.
Meitner, M. J. (2004). Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon: Relating perceptual judgments to location. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, 3–13.
Misgav, A. (2000). Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 143–159.
Mok, J., Landphair, H. C., & Naderi, J. R. (2005). Landscape improvement impacts on roadside safety in Texas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(3), 263–274.
Müderrisoğlu, H., Eroğlu, E., Özkan, Ş., & ve Ak, K. (2006). Visual perception of tree forms. Building and Environment, 41(6), 796–806.
Ribe, R. G. (1994). Scenic beauty perceptions along the ROS. Journal of Environmental Management, 42(3), 199–221.
Roth, M. (2006). Validating the use of internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment-An empirical study from Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(3), 179–192.
Shafer Jr, E. L., & Brush, R. O. (1977). How to measure preference for photographs af natural landscapes. Landscape Planning, 4, 237–256.
Sheppard, S., & Picard, P. (2005). Visual-quality impacts of forest pest activity at the landscape level: A synthesis of published knowledge and research needs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(4), 321–342.
Shuttleworth, S. (1980a). The use of photographs as an environment presantation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management, 11(1), 61–76.
Shuttleworth, S. (1980b). The evaluation of landscape quality. Landscape Research, 5(1), 14–1518–20.
Schroeder, H. W., & Daniel, T. C. (1980). Predicting the scenic quality of forest road corridors. Environment & Behavior, 12(3), 349–366.
Sullivan, W. C., & Lovell, S. T. (2006). Improving the visual quality of commercial development at the rural–urban fringe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(1–2), 152–166.
Tahvanainen, L., Ihalainen, M., Hietala-Koivu, R., Kolehmainen, O., Tyrväinen, L., Nousiainen, O., & Helenius, J. (2002). Measures of the, EU agri-environmental protection scheme (GAEPS) and their impacts on the visual acceptability of Finnish agricultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management, 66, 213–227.
Tzolova, G. V. (1995). An experiment in greenway analysis and assesment: The Danıbe River. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33(1–3), 283–294.
Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29–44.
Van den Berg, A. E., & Koole, S. L. (2006). New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4), 362–372.
Wherrett, J. R. (2000). Creating landscape preference models using internet survey techniques. Landscape Research, 25(1), 79–96.
Yu, K. (1995). Cultural variations in landscape preference: Comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and western design experts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32(2), 107–126.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bulut, Z., Yilmaz, H. Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality assessment method: a case study for Kemaliye (Erzincan/Turkey). Environ Monit Assess 141, 121–129 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9882-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9882-0