Visual Landscape Quality analysis and evaluation
Demographic characteristics of the people to whom the questionnaire was applied in visual landscape quality analysis are given in Table 4.
Table 4
Demographic characteristics of university students to whom visual landscape quality analysis was applied
Individual Characteristics
|
|
Number (N)
|
Percent (%)
|
Gender
|
Male
|
100
|
40,2
|
Woman
|
150
|
59,8
|
Age
|
15–20
|
16
|
6,4
|
21–30
|
230
|
92
|
31–40
|
4
|
1,6
|
Marital Status
|
The married
|
6
|
2,3
|
Single
|
242
|
96,8
|
Married with Children
|
2
|
0,4
|
Number of children
|
0
|
248
|
99,2
|
1
|
2
|
0,8
|
Education
|
License
|
238
|
95,2
|
Master
|
10
|
4
|
Doctorate
|
2
|
0,8
|
Department
|
Landscape Architect
|
158
|
63,2
|
Architect
|
18
|
7,2
|
City and Region Planning
|
28
|
11,2
|
Forest Engineering
|
46
|
18,4
|
Environmental Club Membership
|
Yes
|
14
|
18,7
|
No
|
61
|
81,3
|
University students were asked, “What kind of recreational activities do you do in your spare time?” In their answers to the question, their 1st preference is 45.20% (N = 113) "Walking and strolling"; their second preference is 20.8% (N = 52),ʽʽSitting and watching the sceneryʼʼ; their third preference is 14.4% (N = 36) compared to ʽʽSpending time with family and friends" (Fig. 5).
Evaluation Of Photographs According To Adjective Pairs In Visual Landscape Quality Analysis
Adjective pairs are scored from positive to negative as + 2,+1,0,-1,-2. Scoring was 1,2,3,4,5, corresponding to + 2,+1,0,-1,-2 in SPSS. Accordingly, the photograph with the highest score in the scoring is the photograph closest to the negative according to the scoring (Table 5).
Table 5
Average scores of photographs according to adjective pairs in visual landscape quality analysis
ADJECTIVE PAIRS
|
PHOTOS /AVERAGE SCORES
|
|
F1
|
F2
|
F3
|
F4
|
F5
|
F6
|
F7
|
F8
|
F9
|
F10
|
F11
|
F12
|
F13
|
F14
|
Tidy
|
2,89
|
2,46
|
1,64
|
2,76
|
2,71
|
2,65
|
3,49
|
2,07
|
2,29
|
2,51
|
3,49
|
2,32
|
3,61
|
3,14
|
Interesting/
Attractive
|
3,04
|
2,44
|
2,07
|
1,96
|
2,32
|
2,36
|
3,38
|
2,04
|
2,17
|
2,42
|
2,94
|
2,31
|
3,01
|
2,61
|
Safe
|
3,40
|
2,75
|
2,01
|
2,72
|
2,50
|
3,22
|
3,53
|
2,36
|
2,38
|
2,82
|
3,45
|
2,79
|
3,67
|
3,12
|
Exciting
|
3,08
|
2,71
|
2,34
|
2,18
|
2,56
|
2,32
|
3,39
|
2,25
|
2,17
|
2,42
|
2,90
|
2,39
|
2,98
|
2,57
|
Accessible
|
2,61
|
2,42
|
2,08
|
2,46
|
2,33
|
2,82
|
2,83
|
2,28
|
2,13
|
2,40
|
2,99
|
2,42
|
3,14
|
2,81
|
Various
|
2,90
|
3,00
|
2,58
|
2,43
|
2,54
|
2,46
|
3,30
|
2,30
|
2,23
|
2,37
|
2,67
|
2,41
|
2,83
|
2,51
|
Animated/ Dynamic
|
3,06
|
2,95
|
2,80
|
2,30
|
2,58
|
2,50
|
3,29
|
2,40
|
2,35
|
2,55
|
2,84
|
2,51
|
2,92
|
2,70
|
Relaxing/
Comforting
|
2,34
|
1,99
|
1,67
|
2,18
|
2,14
|
2,16
|
3,11
|
1,74
|
1,96
|
2,16
|
2,76
|
2,32
|
3,16
|
2,56
|
Visible
|
2,23
|
2,10
|
1,78
|
2,26
|
2,22
|
2,35
|
2,83
|
2,00
|
2,08
|
2,28
|
2,85
|
2,43
|
3,01
|
2,54
|
Original/
Unique
|
3,27
|
3,00
|
2,69
|
2,60
|
2,93
|
2,64
|
3,43
|
2,58
|
2,79
|
2,74
|
3,08
|
2,88
|
3,12
|
2,90
|
Wild/Savage
|
2,72
|
3,03
|
3,46
|
2,82
|
3,29
|
2,54
|
2,92
|
3,21
|
3,16
|
2,86
|
2,52
|
2,90
|
2,68
|
2,55
|
Inviting
|
3,40
|
2,84
|
2,09
|
2,30
|
2,58
|
2,57
|
3,38
|
2,12
|
2,36
|
2,54
|
3,02
|
2,52
|
3,17
|
2,78
|
Color effective
|
2,75
|
2,66
|
2,42
|
2,62
|
2,69
|
2,60
|
3,16
|
2,00
|
2,27
|
2,42
|
2,84
|
2,45
|
2,82
|
2,60
|
Land form effective
|
2,75
|
2,63
|
2,39
|
2,54
|
2,72
|
2,49
|
3,02
|
2,36
|
2,39
|
2,44
|
2,86
|
2,52
|
2,78
|
2,60
|
Rich in plant diversity
|
2,62
|
2,76
|
2,55
|
2,58
|
2,65
|
2,34
|
3,00
|
2,23
|
2,17
|
2,26
|
2,32
|
2,26
|
2,51
|
2,26
|
Natural
|
1,58
|
1,54
|
1,80
|
1,68
|
1,96
|
1,57
|
1,97
|
1,55
|
1,68
|
1,60
|
1,76
|
1,76
|
1,82
|
1,79
|
Well maintained
|
3,10
|
2,41
|
1,88
|
2,55
|
2,66
|
2,79
|
3,52
|
2,29
|
2,35
|
2,57
|
3,34
|
2,56
|
3,44
|
3,07
|
Dense
|
1,89
|
2,41
|
2,39
|
2,20
|
2,68
|
1,83
|
2,86
|
2,12
|
2,24
|
2,04
|
2,02
|
2,13
|
2,26
|
2,10
|
Average
|
2,76
|
2,56
|
2,26
|
2,40
|
2,56
|
2,46
|
3,13
|
2,22
|
2,29
|
2,41
|
2,81
|
2,44
|
2,94
|
2,62
|
According to the analysis made, when evaluated according to the scores of adjective pairs in Bolu Urban Forest (Table 4), the least preferred (highest score) photographs were F7 (mean score = 3.13), the second place was F13 (mean total score = 2, 94), followed by F1 (mean score = 2.76) (Fig. 5). According to the surveys made by the users in the visual landscape quality analysis, the neglected areas in the urban forest where the trees were felled were chosen as the least preferred areas (F7) (Fig. 6). The students participating in the survey mostly prefer clear grass areas and flowery areas in the forest.
The photographs least preferred by university students are F7 (mean score = 3.13), F13 (mean score = 2.94) and F1 (mean score = 2.76)
According to the analysis made, if the participants of the survey are evaluated according to the scores of Bolu Urban Forest adjective pairs, the most preferred photographs (with the lowest score) are F8 (average score = 2.22), F3 (average score = 2.26) and F9 (average score = 2.29), as shown in Fig. 7.
The most preferred photographs by university students F8 (mean score = 2.22) F3 (mean total score = 2.26), and F9 (mean total score = 2.29)
According to the adjective pairs; the most tidy is photo F3, the most interesting is photo F4, the safest is photo F3, the most exciting is photo F9, the most accessible is photo F3, the most diverse is photo F9, the most moving is photo F4, the most relaxing is photo F3, the most visible is photo F3, the most original is photo F8, the most non-wild is photo F11, the most inviting is photo F3, the photo with the most color effect and the most landform effect is F8, the photo richest in plant diversity is F9, the most natural photo is F2, the most well-groomed photo is F3, the most intense is photo F6 as chosen by university students (Table 5).
The Relationship Between Photo Preference And University Students' Departmental Situation In Visual Landscape Quality Analysis
According to the one-way anova test, the homogeneity test of the variances was performed first. As a result of this test, since no significant results could be obtained in Tukey's method (p˃0.05), Bonferroni technique was applied. According to this technique, all photographs were analyzed one by one. Only their perceptions in F1 differed significantly according to the department status of the participants (p = 0.000). According to the data obtained, the answers given by the students of the Landscape Architecture department and the students of City and Regional Planning were fully compatible. City and Regional Planning students, on the other hand, were fully compatible with both Forest Engineering and Landscape Architecture students.
Since the + 2,+1,0,-1,-2 point system was applied to SPSS as 1,2,3,4,5 in the questionnaire scoring, the lowest scores were the highest; the highest scores are the photographs with the lowest scores. According to this point system, according to the scores given by the university students to the photographs according to the departments, City and Regional Planning students gave the lowest score to all photographs except F4 (average score = 2.61). It was observed that Forest Engineering students gave the highest score to all photographs except F11 (average score = 2.78). Architecture students gave the lowest score to F4 (average score = 2.68), and Landscape Architecture students gave the highest score to F11 (average score = 2.97).
According to the analysis made, City and Regional Planning students gave low scores to the field. Forest Engineering students, on the other hand, gave high marks to the field. Architecture students gave the lowest score to Photo 4 (average score = 2.68). Landscape Architecture students gave the highest score to Photo 11 (average score = 2.70). The reason for this is the harmony of the natural landscape elements, the wooden bench, and the area. The most preferred and least preferred photographs of each of the four sections are given in Table 6.
Table 6
The most preferred and least preferred photographs according to the sections in the visual landscape quality analysis
|
Departments
|
Most Preferred Photo
|
Least Preferred Photo
|
1
|
Landscape Architecture
|
F8 (2,23)
|
F7 (3,07)
|
2
|
Architecture
|
F8 (2,15)
|
F7 (3,37)
|
3
|
City And Region Planning
|
F8 (2,43)
|
F7 (3,58)
|
4
|
Forest Engineering
|
F9 (1,90)
|
F7 (2,97)
|
Photographs 8 (F8) and Photographs 9 (F9) were the most preferred, while Photograph 7 (F7) was the least preferred, according to the overall average score given by all departments. Looking at the 8th (F8) and 9th (F9) photographs, it is seen that there are clear and flowered areas. This shows that university students prefer open and spacious areas rather than dense forest areas. Looking at the 7th photo (F7), it is seen that there are areas with old, collapsed trees. This shows that university students do not want to see neglected and destroyed trees in the area.
Evaluation Of Recreational Use Potential Of Bolu Urban Forest
The recreational potential of the Bolu Urban Forest was applied for the Bolu Urban Forest by changing it for the area according to the evaluation table created by Gülez (1990) to determine the recreational potential of the inner forest areas (Table 7).
Table 7 Recreational potential analysis table
Bolu Urban Forest has a recreation potential of 42% according to the evaluations made. According to the recreation potential evaluation table, the current situation of the area has a low recreation potential, since the rate is between 30–44%. In this context, the current recreation potential of Bolu Urban Forest in Table 7 is as follows.
➣ The area has an average size (130.7 ha), is rich in vegetation, but it is a negative factor that no water source passes through the area. The previous water sources have dried up, so they cannot be used, including the fountain. As a visual quality, the view has an aesthetic value in terms of landscape, but there are no areas with historical and cultural value in the area.
➣ As a climate value, it has a Black Sea climate, so there is forest cover, precipitation is high, temperatures are low on average.
➣ When we examine the visitor potential, it is located on an important highway route. It is on the route of an important tourism center like Abant, on the side of the highway. Having a population of 284,789 in the region where it is located is also an advantage. There are many important recreation areas around the region where it is located.
➣ In terms of accessibility, since the area is 14 km away from the city center, transportation is possible by private vehicle or public transportation. The fact that the transportation time from the city center is less than half an hour is also an advantage for the area.
➣ In terms of ease of use, there is a fountain in the area, but it cannot be used. But having a fountain makes it easy to bring a water line. The lack of a water source passing through the area is a disadvantage for the area.
➣ When the negative factors are examined, the area has the risk of fire due to its dense vegetation. Although there are security booths in the area, there are no security personnel. Since the area was not actively used, the buildings in the area were neglected and most of them were broken. Due to the fact that the area is on the side of the highway, noise pollution occurs in the area.