Visual Preferences Assessment of Landscape Character Types Using Data Mining Methods (Apriori Algorithm): The Case of Altınsaç and Inkoy (Van/Turkey)

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
F. Asur
S. Deniz Sevimli
K. Yazici
Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture-Design, University of Yuzuncu Yil, Van, Turkey.
Abstract
Nowadays, in environmental planning and management, the approach to protect visually diverse landscapes has been an important component in planning decisions. Visual quality analysis is a method to determine the visual quality and visual preferences of the landscape, by correlating its physical characteristics with perceptual parameters, whereby it is possible to demonstrate the visual potential of a field by converting qualitative definitions into quantitative data. The visual quality of the landscape is widely considered as an important resource worth preserving. Despite making a great effort to determine the factors that guide aesthetic preferences, the consensus in the judgments of people is neglected in most of such surveys. This study examines various types of landscape characters in Altınsaç and Inkoy Regions (Gevaş/Van) with spatial heterogeneity, because of the region’s topographic structure and location. The characteristic structure of the region consists of mountains, lakes, forests, natural vegetation landscapes, and wildlife as natural landscapes. Also, road, rural settlement, agricultural landscapes, and historical structures are considered as cultural landscapes. In order to determine the participants’ visual preferences of various landscape types with perceptual parameters, this study focused on consensuses through the Apriori algorithm, which is a data mining tool. Giving reference to define perceptual parameters, a survey with 202 participants was conducted using 9 different landscape character types selected. With questions about the appreciation of the beauty of the landscape scene, the consensuses on the landscape and its relationship with perceptual parameters, such as mysteriousness, typicality, vitality, safety, impressiveness, silence, perspective, degradation, and worth being protected, were examined. It was proven that the higher the visual quality of the landscape, the higher was the observers’ consensus rate. Some suggestions and objectives are presented, based on the data derived from this study.

Keywords

Subjects

Acar, H., Eroğlu, E. and Acar, C. 2013. Landscape values of rocky habitats in urban and semi-urban context of Turkey: A study of Tokat city. Journal of Food Agriculture & Environment 11(2): 1200-1211.
Ak, M. M. 2010. Akçakoca Kıyı Bandı Örneğinde Görsel Kalitenin Belirlenmesi ve Değerlendirilmesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı, Doktora Tezi, Ankara, 156s.
Aklıbaşında, M. and Bulut, Y. 2018. Kırsal turizm planlamasında farklı peyzaj tiplerinin görsel kalite yönünden değerlendirilmesi. Akademik Ziraat Dergisi, 7(1), 93-100.
Anonymous. 2019. Governorship of Van. – www.van.gov.tr/ (Accessed: January, 2019).
Appleton, J. 1975. Landscape evaluation: the theoretical vacuum. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 120-123.
Arriaza, M., Ortega, J.F.C., Medueno, J.A.C. and Aviles, P.R. 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 69 (1), 115 – 125.
Aşur, F. 2019. An Evaluation of Visual Landscape Quality of Coastal Settlements: A Case Study of Coastal Areas In The Van Lake Basin (Turkey), Applied Ecology And Environmental Research, 17(2), 1849 -1864.
Aşur, F. and Alphan, H. 2018. Görsel Peyzaj Kalite Değerlendirmesi ve Alan Kullanım Planlamasına Olan Etkileri. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 28(1), 117-125.
Ayoubi, S., F. Khormali, F., Sahrawat K. L. and Rodrigues de Lima A. C. (2011). Assessing Impacts of Land Use Change on Soil Quality Indicators in a Loessial Soil in Golestan Province, Iran. J. Agr. Sci. Tech. (2011) Vol. 13: 727-742 .
Bell, S. 1999. Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process, Published by E & FN Spon, London.
Breuste, J. H. 2004. Decision making, planning and design for the conservation of indigenous vegetation within urban development. Landscape and urban Planning, 68(4), 439-452.
Clay, G. R. and Smidt, R. K. 2004. Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Descriptor Variables Used in Scenic Highway Analysis, Landscape and Urban Planning, 66, 239–255.
Clay, G., R. and 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), P: 1-13.
Daniel, T. C. 2001. Whither Scenic Beauty? Visual Landscape Quality Assessment İn The 21st Century. Landscape And Urban Planning. Volume 54, Issues 1–4, 25 May 2001, Pages 267281. https://www.For.gov.Bc.Ca/Hfp/Values/Visual/Vlı/İndex.htm.
Dramstad, W. E., Tveit, M. S., Fjellstad, W. J. and Fry, G. L. A. 2006. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and mapbased indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4), 465–474.
Dronova, I. 2017. Environmental heterogeneity as a bridge between ecosystem service and visual quality objectives in management, planning and design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 163, 90-106.
Düzgüneş, E. and Demirel, Ö. 2015. Evaluation of rural areas in terms of landscape quality: Salacik Village (Trabzon/Turkey) example. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 187(6), 310.
Eroğlu, E. 2012. Defining of Native Plant Compositions Determined Landscape Character in Mountainous Area Roadside Corridors: A Case Study Of Ataköy-Sultanmurat-Uzungöl-sulak alan Roadside Corridor. Karadeniz Technical University, The Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences Landscape Architecture Graduate Program.
Eroğlu, E. and Acar, C. 2011. Visual landscape character of oriental spruce (Picea orientalis (L.) LINK.) mountain forests in Turkey. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Managment, 19(3): 189-197.
Eroğlu, E. and Acar, C. 2018. Türkiye'deki Yol Kenarındaki Kavak Bitkilerinin Görsel Değerlendirmesi. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 24 (2), 185-198.
Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Ode, A. and Velarde M. D. 2009. The Ecology of Visual Landscapes: Exploring the Conceptual Common Ground of Visual and Ecological Landscape Indicators, Ecological Indicators, 9, 933-947.
Gülgün B., Güney M.A., Aktaş E. and Yazici K. 2014. Role of the Landscape Architecture in Interdisciplinary Planning of Sustainable Cities. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology
Hagerhall, C. M., 2001. Consensus in landscape preference judgements. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(1), 83-92.
Han J. and Kamber M. 2012. Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques, 3rd ed., Morgan Kaufmann, USA.
Huang, J. 2014. Landscape visual quality assessment in washtenaw county, MI. School of natural resources and environment university of Michigan, 18-1.
Junge, X., Schüpbach, B., Walter, T., Schmid, B. and Lindemann-Matthies, P., 2015. Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 133, 67-77.
Kalın, A. 2004. Çevre Tercih ve Değerlendirmesinde Görsel Kalitenin Belirlenmesi ve Geliştirilmiş: Trabzon Sahil Bandı Örneği. K.T.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, Trabzon, 221 s.
Kalın, A., Eroğlu, E., Acar, C., Çakır ,G., Güneroğlu, N., Kahveci, H. and Gel, A. 2014. Visual quality in landscape character: Example of mountain-road corridor in Turkey. Journal of Balkan Ecology 17 (2), 161-180.
Kalivoda, O., Vojar, J., Skřivanová, Z. and Zahradník, D. 2014. Consensus in landscape preference judgments: The effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents' characteristics. Journal of environmental management, 137, 36-44.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. ve Ryan R. L. 1998. With People in Mind Design and Management of Everyday Nature, Island Press, Washington, D.C. Covelo, California.

Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. CUP Archive.
Kaplan, R. and Talbot, J. F. 1988. Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: A review and recent findings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15(1-2), 107-117.
Kıroğlu, E. 2007. Erzurum Kenti ve Yakın Çevresindeki Bazı Rekreasyon Alanlarının Görsel Peyzaj Kalitesi Yönünden Değerlendirilmesi. Master’s thesis, Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Erzurum, Turkey.
Kim, N. H. and Kang, H. H. 2009. The Aesthetic Evaluation of Coastal Landscape, Ksce Journal of Civil Engineering, 13, 2, 65-74.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Briegel, R., Schüpbach, B. and Junge, X. 2010. Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: The impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 98(2), 99-109.
Lothian, A. 1999. Landseape And Philosophy Of Aestheties: İs Landseape Quality İnherent İn The Landseape Or İn The Beholder? Landscape And Urban Planııing. 44: 177-198.
Matthies, P. L., Briegel, R., Schüpbach, B. and Junge, X. 2010. Aesthetic perefence for a Swiss alpine landscape: the ımpact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 98: 99109.
Meitner, M. J. 2004. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon: relating perceptual judgments to locations. Landscape and urban planning, 68(1), 3-13.
Müderrisoğlu, H. and Eroğlu, E. 2006. Bazı İbreli Ağaçların Kar Yükü Altında Görsel Algılanmasındaki Farklılıklar. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 1, 136-146.
Nasar, J. L. 1988. Environmental Aesthetics, Teory, Research and Applications, Cambridge University Press, USA.
Ode, A., Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Messager, P. and Miller, D. 2009. Indicators of Perceived Naturalness as Drivers of Landscape Preference, Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 375-383.
Özbilen, A. 1983. Meryemana (Sümela) Kırsal Yöresinde. Çevre Tasarımı için Kullanıcıya Referans Olan) Yapay-Doğal İmgelem Öğelerinin Araştırılması, Basılmış Doktora Tezi, KTÜ Fen Blimleri Enstitüsü, KTÜ Basımevi Trabzon.
Palmer, J.F. and Hoffman, R.E. 2001. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 54 (1–4) pp. 149-161.
Polat, A. T. and Akay, A. 2015. Relationships between the visual preferences of urban recreation area users and various landscape design elements. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14(3), 573-582. doi-10.1016/j.ufug.2015.05.009
Richard, E.C. and Gobster, P.H. 1990. The Nature and Ecology of Aesthetic Experiences in the Landscape. Landscape Journal, 9, 1-8.
Sarı, D. 2013. Kayalık habitatların peyzaj değerlendirmesi üzerine bir araştırma: Hatila Vadisi Milli Parkı (Artvin) örneği. Doktora Tezi, K.T.Ü., Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon
Sevenant, M. and Antrop, M. 2009. Cognitive Attributes And Aesthetic Preferences İn Assessment And Differentiation of Landscapes, Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 9, 2889-2899.
Soliva, R. and Hunziker, M. 2009. How do biodiversity and conservation values relate to landscape preferences? A case study from the Swiss Alps. Biodiversity and Conservation 18, 2483–2507.
Tapkan, P., Özbakır, L. and Baykasoğlu, A. 2011. Weka İle Veri Madenciliği Süreci Ve Örnek Uygulama. Endüstri Mühendisliği Yazılımları ve Uygulamaları Kongresi 30 Eylül-01/02 Ekim 2011.
Tveit, A. D. 2009. A parental voice: parents as equal and dependent–rhetoric about parents, teachers, and their conversations. Educational Review, 61(3), 289-300.
Tveit, M., Ode, A. and Fry, G., 2006. Key Concepts in a Framework for Analysing Visual Landscape Character. Landscape Research. 31(3), 229 – 255.
Val, G.F., Atauri, J.A. and Lucio, J.V., 2006. Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: a test study in mediterranean – climate landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planing, 77: 393 – 407.
Van den Born, R.J.G., Lenders, R.H.J., de Groot, W.T., Huijsman, E., 2001. The New Biophilia: an exploration of visions of natüre in Western countries. Environ. Conserv. 28 (1), 65–75
Wang, R., Zhao, J. and Liu, Z., 2016. The consensus in visual preferences: The effects of aesthetic quality and landscape types. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 210-217.
Yazici, K. 2018. Evaluation of Visual Landscape Quality In The Wetlands North of Sivas (Turkey). Applied Ecology And Environmental Research, 16(4), 4183-4197.
Yazici K., Gülgün Aslan B. and Ankaya F. 2017. Examination of Landscape Scenery Areas and Activities: A Case Study in Van Province of Turkey. Karabük Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 168-176.
Yılmaz, S., Özgüner, H. and Mumcu, S. 2018. An aesthetic approach to planting design in urban parks and greenspaces. Landscape research, 43(7), 965-983.
Zhang, H. ve Lin, S. H., 2011. Affective Appraisal of Residents and Visual Elements in the Neighborhood: A Case Study in an Established Suburban Community, Landscape and Urban Planning, 101, 1, 11-21.
Zhao, J., Luo, P., Wang, R. and Cai, Y. 2013. Correlations between aesthetic preferences of river and landscape characters. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscpae Managment 21 (2), 123-132.
Zuazo, V. H., Rodríguez Pleguezuelo, C.R., Cuadros Tavira, S and Francia Martínez J.R. 2014. Linking Soil Organic Carbon Stocks to Land-use Types in a Mediterranean Agroforestry Landscape, J. Agr. Sci. Tech. (2014) Vol. 16: 667-679.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
Volume 22, Issue 1
January and February 2020
Pages 247-260