Complexity, Historicity and Coherence: Preference and Quality of the Changes in the Urban Scene

References

• Akyol Elif M 2011. An Analysis of the Change of the User Preferences in the Coastline Over Time: A Case Study of Trabzon Coastline. Master’s Thesis. Turkey: Trabzon, University of Karadeniz Technical.
   Google Scholar
• Aminzadeh B, Ghorashi S 2007. Scenic landscape Quality and recreational activities in natural forest parks, Iran. International Journal of Environmental Re-search, 1 (1): 5–13.
   Google Scholar
• Appleton J 1975. The Experience of Landscape. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Aslan F, Atik A 2015. Perceptions about commercial advertising signs on street landscape and shopping preferences: The sample of Kisla Street, Malatya-Turkey. American Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (4): 129–140.
   Google Scholar
• Aytas I, Uzun S 2015. Determining visual landscape quality of pedestrian areas in Diizce city center. Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University, 65 (1): 11–29.
   Google Scholar
• Benliay A, Soydan 0, Kayku M 2015. Evaluation of visual quality of landscape and landscape characteristic examination of Perge-Aspendos-Sillyon bicycle route. Artium, 3 (1): 48-64.
   Google Scholar
• Berlyne DE 1974. Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics: Steps Toward an Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bolukbasi A. 2006. Anilarda Trabzon I-IL Trabzon: Serander Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bostanci SH, Ocakci M, Seker S 2006. The entropy approach to evaluation of in terms of the diversity of urban silhouette. Journal of Istanbul Kfiltiir University, 2: 3–95.
   Google Scholar
• Bourassa SC 1990. A paradigm for landscape aesthetics. Environment and Behavior, 22: 787–812.
   Google Scholar
• Bourassa SC 1991. The Aesthetics of Landscape. London: Belhaven Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson A 2001. Aesthetic preferences for sustainable landscapes: seeing and knowing. In: SRJ Sheppard, HW Harshaw (Eds.): Forests and Landscapes-linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics. Walling-ford: CABI Publishing, pp. 31-41.
   Google Scholar
• Cetin M 2015. Using GIS analysis to assess urban green space in terms of accessibility: case study in Kutahya. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 22 (5): 420–424.
   Google Scholar
• Clay GR, Smidt RK 2004. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic high-way analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 66: 239–255.
   Google Scholar
• Crozier JB 1974. Verbal and exploratory responses to sound sequences varying in uncertainty level. In: DE Berlyne (Ed.): Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics. New York: Halsted, pp. 27-90.
   Google Scholar
• Cubukcu E, Ozcan NS, Ozkan A 2014. The influence of commercial sign design and space invasion on Environmental aesthetic evaluations of commercial street: An empirical study using virtual environments. Erciyes University Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 30 (4): 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Dovey K, Polakit K 2006. Urban slippage: smooth and striated streetscapes in Bangkok, loose space: Diversity and possibility in urban life. In: Kim Dovey (Ed.): Becoming Places: Urbanism / Architecture / Identity / Power. London: Routledge, pp. 168-193.
   Google Scholar
• Fry G, Tveit MS, Ode A, Velarde MD 2009. The Ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators, 9: 933–947.
   Google Scholar
• Gehl J, Kaefer LJ, Reigstad S 2006. Close encounters with buildings. Urban Design International, 11: 29–47.
   Google Scholar
• Gulturk P, Sisman EE 2015. Assessing the visual Landscape quality of Tekirdag city center coastline and its effects to space preferences. Journal of Adnan Menderes University Agricultural Faculty, 12 (1): 81–89.
   Google Scholar
• Hägerhäll Caroline 1999. The Experience of Pastoral Landscapes. PhD Thesis. Switzerland: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Heath T, Smith G Sandy, Lim B 2000. Tall buildings and the urban skyline the effect of visual complexity on preference. Environment and Behavior, 32 (4): 541–556.
   Google Scholar
• Herzog TR 1989. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9: 27–43.
   Google Scholar
• Horayangkura Y 1978. Semantic dimensional structures: A methodological approach. Environment and Behavior, 10: 555–583.
   Google Scholar
• Imamoglu C 2000. Complexity, liking, and familiarity: Architecture and non-architecture Turkish student assessments of traditional and modern house facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20: 5–16.
   Google Scholar
• Kahn Arzu 2004. Determination and Improvement of Visual Quality in Environmental Preference and Evaluation: A Sample of Trabzon Coast Line. PhD Thesis. Trabzon, Turkey: University of Karadeniz Technical.
   Google Scholar
• Kahn A, Yilmaz D 2012. A study on visibility analysis of urban landmarks: The case of Hagia Sophia (Aya-sofya) in Trabzon. METU Journal of the Faculty of the Architecture, 29 (1): 241–271.
   Google Scholar
• Kahn A, Eroglu E, Acar C, Cakir G, Giineroglu N, Kahveci H, Gel AG 2014. Visual quality in landscape character studies: Example of mountain-road corridor in Turkey. Journal of Balkan Ecology, 17 (2): 161–179.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan R 1977. Down by the riverside. Information factors in waterscape preference. In: USDA Forest (Ed.): River Recreation Management and Research Symposium, Chicago, North Central Forest Experimental Station, 1977, pp. 285–289.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan S 1987. Aesthetics, affect and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary Perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19: 3–32.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan R, Kaplan S 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York: University of Cambridge Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nasar JL 1988a. Perception and evaluation of residential street scenes. In: Jack L Nasar (Ed.): Environmental Aesthetics; Theory, Research and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 275-290.
   Google Scholar
• Nasar JL 1988b. The effect of sign complexity and coherence on the perceived quality of retail scenes. In: Jack L Nasar (Ed.): Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 300-320.
   Google Scholar
• Ode A, Tveit MS, Fry G 2008. Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: Touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research, 33: 89–11 .
   Google Scholar
• Oosyendorp A, Berlyne DE 1978. Dimensions in the perception of architecture: Identification and Interpretation of dimensions of similarity. Journal of Psychology, 19: 73–82.
   Google Scholar
• Ozhanci E, Yilmaz H 2011. Evaluation of recreation areas for visual landscape quality: Sample of Erzurum, Turkey. Iodir University Journal Science and Technology,1(2): 67–78.
   Google Scholar
• Ozkan DG, Alpak EM, Yilmaz S, Diizenli T, Ozbilen A 2015. Post-occupancy evaluation and user satisfAction in urban open space. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 24 (5): 1659–1672.
   Google Scholar
• Sakici C 2015. Assessing landscape perceptions of Urban waterscapes. Anthropologist, 21(1, 2): 182-196
   Google Scholar
• Sherman SA, Varni JW, Ulrich RS, Malcarne VL 2005. Post-occupancy evaluation of healing gardens in a pediatric cancer center. Landscape and Urban Planning, 73: 167–183.
   Google Scholar
• Svobodova K, Sklenicka P, Vojar J 2015. How does the representation rate of features in a landscape affect visual preferences? A case study from a post-mining landscape. International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 29 (4): 266–276.
   Google Scholar
• Surat H, Yaman KY 2015. An evaluation of pedestrian access in urban roads, according to public references. Kastamonu University, Journal of Forestry Faculty, 15 (1): 58–72.
   Google Scholar
• Strumse E 1994. Perceptual dimensions in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14: 281–292.
   Google Scholar
• Tempesta T 2010. The perception of agrarian historical landscapes: A study of the Veneto plain in Italy. Landscape Urban Plan, 97: 258–272.
   Google Scholar
• Tuan Y 1974. Topophilia. A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tveit M, Ode A, Fry G 2006. Key concepts in a frame-work for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31: 229–255.
   Google Scholar
• Val GF, Atauri AJ, Lucio VJ 2005. Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean climate. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77: 393–407.
   Google Scholar
• van Mansvelt JD, Kuiper J 1999. Criteria for the Humanity realm: psychology and physiognomy and cultural heritage. In: JD van Mansvelt, MJ van der Lubbe (Eds.): Checklist for Sustainable Landscape Management. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp. 116-213.
   Google Scholar
• Wohlwill JF 1968. Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 4: 307–331.
   Google Scholar
• Wohlwill JF 1976. Environmental aesthetics: The Environment as a source of affect. In: I Altman, JF Wohlwill (Eds.): Human Behavior and Environment. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 37-86.
   Google Scholar
• Yilmaz H, Surat H, Ozhanci E, Yesil P, Yesil M 2015. Urban living area satisfaction and public preference. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty, 15 (2): 319–329.
   Google Scholar
• Zube EH 1974. Cross-disciplinary and intermode agreement on the description and evaluation of landscape resources. Environment and Behavior, 39: 69–89.
   Google Scholar