IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v26y2024i4d10.1007_s10668-023-03086-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of different wall design proposals based on user perception: the Izmit example in Türkiye

Author

Listed:
  • Cigdem Sakıcı

    (Kastamonu University)

  • Gulsah Kendirci

    (Kastamonu University)

Abstract

Surplus structures lead to wall problems in outdoor spaces. This makes people feel trapped between concrete masses. In this study, the walls in Izmit were examined. Activity areas in Izmit were determined as roadside, children's playground, sports area and resting area in which the wall is used intensively. The focal point was chosen as the visual quality of the walls in these areas. Visual quality is the user's appreciation or preference of the images of the walls before and after the design intervention. For each activity area, a total of 8 different wall examples of boundary and load-bearing walls were decided on, and design recommendations were developed using three different techniques of planting, constructiveness and planting–constructiveness. For each activity area, different intervention rates less (25–50%) or more (75–100%) were employed. Subsequently, the effect of these proposed designs on users and appropriate applications for different walls was revealed with the aid of a survey. In order to reveal the selection differences between the user group and the expert group, the survey was applied to 100 voluntary participants and an expert group of 10 landscape architects. As a result of the analysis, it was revealed that activity difference and the intervention rate were effective in the choice of intervention. Planting intervention design proposals were chosen for children’s playground and roadside while constructiveness and planting interventions were chosen for resting areas. Also, constructiveness interventions were chosen for sports areas. On the basis of the results, activity type in the areas where the walls are located was found to be effective on choices. It is important to choose the appropriate intervention technique in accordance with the user's preference for the activity. Overall, this study aims to emphasize the necessity and importance of correct interventions to walls in order to illustrate the city more liveable, healthy and comfortable, providing aesthetic value in a visual sense compatible with the city.

Suggested Citation

  • Cigdem Sakıcı & Gulsah Kendirci, 2024. "Evaluation of different wall design proposals based on user perception: the Izmit example in Türkiye," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 9141-9163, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03086-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-023-03086-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-023-03086-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-023-03086-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margarita-Niki Assimakopoulos & Rosa Francesca De Masi & Filippo de Rossi & Dimitra Papadaki & Silvia Ruggiero, 2020. "Green Wall Design Approach Towards Energy Performance and Indoor Comfort Improvement: A Case Study in Athens," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-23, May.
    2. M Hedblom & H Hedenås & M Blicharska & S Adler & I Knez & G Mikusiński & J Svensson & S Sandström & P Sandström & D. A. Wardle, 2020. "Landscape perception: linking physical monitoring data to perceived landscape properties," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 179-192, February.
    3. Alperen Meral & Nermin Başaran & Emrah Yalçınalp & Ezgi Doğan & Mehmet Kıvanç Ak & Engin Eroğlu, 2018. "A Comparative Approach to Artificial and Natural Green Walls According to Ecological Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    4. Atilla Cakir & Emrah Yalcinalp & Ezgi Dogan & Alperen Meral, 2017. "Determination of the Suitability of Some American Grapevine Rootstocks as a New Edible Landscape Component of Vertical Gardens," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-12, July.
    5. Timothy Beatley & Peter Newman, 2013. "Biophilic Cities Are Sustainable, Resilient Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(8), pages 1-18, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Johanne Heesche & Ellen Marie Braae & Gertrud Jørgensen, 2022. "Landscape-Based Transformation of Young Industrial Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, June.
    2. Alessio Russo & Giuseppe T. Cirella, 2019. "Edible urbanism 5.0," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, December.
    3. Carter, Virginia & Derudder, Ben & Henríquez, Cristián, 2021. "Assessing local governments’ perception of the potential implementation of biophilic urbanism in Chile: A latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    4. Thomas Panagopoulos & Stilianos Tampakis & Paraskevi Karanikola & Aikaterini Karipidou-Kanari & Apostolos Kantartzis, 2018. "The Usage and Perception of Pedestrian and Cycling Streets on Residents’ Well-being in Kalamaria, Greece," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Ming Lu & Zhuolin Tan & Chao Yuan & Yu Dong & Wei Dong, 2023. "Resilience Measurements and Dynamics of Resource-Based Cities in Heilongjiang Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-22, January.
    6. Z. Goosen & E. J. Cilliers, 2020. "Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third Places: A Theory-Based Framework," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 835-866, August.
    7. Leslie Gillespie‐Marthaler & Katherine Nelson & Hiba Baroud & Mark Abkowitz, 2019. "Selecting Indicators for Assessing Community Sustainable Resilience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2479-2498, November.
    8. Tõnis Teppand & Olesja Escuer & Ergo Rikmann & Jüri Liiv & Merrit Shanskiy, 2022. "Timber Structures and Prefabricated Concrete Composite Blocks as a Novel Development in Vertical Gardening," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-10, November.
    9. Dong, Yuxiang & Liu, Song & Pei, Xinsheng & Wang, Ying, 2025. "Spatially explicit multi-objective optimization tool for green infrastructure planning based on InVEST and NSGA-II towards multifunctionality," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    10. Marta Chàfer & Anna Laura Pisello & Cristina Piselli & Luisa F. Cabeza, 2020. "Greenery System for Cooling Down Outdoor Spaces: Results of an Experimental Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-12, July.
    11. Parastoo Parivar & David Quanrud & Ahad Sotoudeh & Mahdieh Abolhasani, 2021. "Evaluation of urban ecological sustainability in arid lands (case study: Yazd-Iran)," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 2797-2826, February.
    12. Borbála Benkhard & Péter Csorba & Tamás Mester & Dániel Balla & Emőke Kiss & György Szabó & István Fazekas & Róbert Vass & Azin Rooien & Mária Vasvári, 2023. "Effects of Mosaic Natural Conditions on the Tourism Management of a Lowland Water Reservoir, Lake Tisza, Hungary," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-19, November.
    13. Maria Beatrice Andreucci & Alessio Russo & Agnieszka Olszewska-Guizzo, 2019. "Designing Urban Green Blue Infrastructure for Mental Health and Elderly Wellbeing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-14, November.
    14. Saba Alnusairat & Jenan Abu Qadourah & Rawan Khattab, 2023. "Assessing the Future City Post COVID-19: Linking the SDGs, Health, Resilience, and Psychological Impact," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-24, January.
    15. Zhu Zhu & Feifei Lu, 2020. "Family Ownership and Corporate Environmental Responsibility: The Contingent Effect of Venture Capital and Institutional Environment," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, June.
    16. Christopher Tirri & Hunter Swanson & Mahbubur Meenar, 2021. "Finding the “Heart” in the Green: Conducting a Bibliometric Analysis to Emphasize the Need for Connecting Emotions with Biophilic Urban Planning," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-19, September.
    17. Borbála Benkhard & Emőke Kiss & Péter Csorba & Dániel Balla & György Szabó & Tamás Mester & Róbert Vass & István Fazekas & Beáta Babka & Dávid Balázs & Mária Vasvári, 2025. "Recreational and Landscape Preferences of Anglers in the Case of Lake Tisza," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-21, March.
    18. Mörtberg, Ulla & Goldenberg, Romain & Kalantari, Zahra & Kordas, Olga & Deal, Brian & Balfors, Berit & Cvetkovic, Vladimir, 2017. "Integrating ecosystem services in the assessment of urban energy trajectories – A study of the Stockholm Region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 338-349.
    19. Thomas Beery & K. Ingemar Jönsson & Johan Elmberg, 2015. "From Environmental Connectedness to Sustainable Futures: Topophilia and Human Affiliation with Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-18, July.
    20. Agnès Patuano, 2020. "Biophobia and Urban Restorativeness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03086-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.