Exploring The Perceived Landscape with The Local People: The Experience of Community Mapping in Orduzu District (Malatya/Turkey)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2021.170Keywords:
Perceived landscape, community mapping, participatory mapping, sketch maps, landscape characterization, Orduzu, MalatyaAbstract
Purpose
The main purpose of the paper is to define historical landscapes through locals’ perspectives and employs community mapping as a tool for defining and transferring perceived landscape elements
Design/Methodology/Approach
The method used in this research consists of various stages, such as determining the boundaries of the study area, determining the goals and objectives of the community mapping, evaluation of the mapping process in the examined toolkits, and the community mapping process design specific to the study area according to the toolkits reviewed in the literature, and the outputs and observations obtained from the maps.
Findings
As a result of the community mapping study conducted with men and women separately, items under the themes of agriculture (past and present), hydrology, tangible cultural heritage, intangible cultural heritage, built environment, connectivity, flora and fauna were identified.
In this study, beyond the recognized physiographic features of the district, were discovered its “unseen” components due to the statements of locals and the analysis of the perceptual data they provided. Were acquired verbal information and point data about some archaeological sites that are not mentioned in any records or literature, as they remain undiscovered.
Research Limitations/Implications
This study bridged an establishing a new link with sustainable spatial planning by assessing perceptions of local people to the environment they live in. However, this study has limitations in the verbal and linear expressions of the groups participating in the mapping process.In the pre-mapping process needs to be supported by local government and non-governmental organizations for more participants.
Social/Practical Implications
it is suggested that the use of this methods such as spatial data production (on historical differences in landscape) within the mainframe of the participant planning approach and community mapping (to ensure collective wellbeing by creating healthy, sustainable spaces) and the inclusion of these methods in spatial planning stages will prove significantly useful.
Originality/Value
This study provides a framework for integrating different perspectives to better recognise and planning and manage the landscape character. This framework can be used as a foundation for a planning process in touch with “real life” and “users”.
Metrics
References
Antrop, M. (2005). From Holistic Landscape Synthesis to Transdisciplinary Landscape Management. In: B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry and P. Opdam, eds. From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration, Education and Application, Springer Press: Netherlands.
Armstrong, H. (2008). Community Mapping, In: Zoë Sofoulis, In: Armstrong, H., Bounds, M., Lopes, A. & Andrews, T. (2008). Out & About in Penrith: Universal Design and Cultural Context: Accessibility, Diversity and Recreational space in Penrith, unpublished report for Penrith City Council and UW
Brown, G. (2006). Mapping Landscape Values and Development Preferences: A Method for Tourism and Residential Development Planning, International Journal of Tourism Research 8: 101–113.
Butler, A., & Berglund, U. (2014). Landscape Character Assessment as an Approach to Understanding Public Interests within the European Landscape Convention. Landscape Research, 39 (3): 219- 236.
Cabeça, S., Gonçalves, A. R., Marques, J. F., & Tavares, M. (2019). Mapping Intangibilities in Creative Tourism Territories Through Tangible Objects: A Methodological Approach for Developing Creative Tourism Offers. Tourism & Management Studies, 15(SI):42-49.
Cosgrove, D., & Daniels, S. (1988). Introduction: iconography of landscape. In: Cosgrove, D. and Daniels, S. eds. The iconography of landscape. Bath Press, Bath.
Council of Europe. (2000). Text of the European Landscape Convention. [online] [accessed 4 October 2010]. Available at: < https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/176>.
Demir, S., & Demirel, Ö. (2016). Korunan Havzalarda Peyzaj Değişimi ve Peyzaj Karakter Analizi ile Peyzaj Planlama Yaklaşımı: Meryemana Vadisi Örneği, Trabzon, Journal of Arts and Design, 6 (13):155-174.
Doyle, W.E. (2014). Review of Perceptions of the Prehistoric in Anglo-Saxon England: Religion, Ritual and Rulership in the Landscape. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 24(1): 1-3.
Di Nocera, G.M. (2006, April 3-8). Settlements, population and landscape on the Upper Euphrates between V and II millennium BC. Results of the Archaeological Survey Project 2003-2005 in the Malatya Plain. [Paper presentation]. 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Ersoy, M. (2008). Kentsel Planlama Kuramları, İmge Kitabevi, Ankara.
Fairclough, G. (2014). Landscape Character Assessment and Historical Landscape Characterisation: Conflicting, Competing, Complementary-The (Un) Necessary Evils of Disciplinary Seperation, The Future of Landscape Characterisation and The Future Character of Landscape [Seminar] Stockholm: KSLA.
Frangipane, M. (2012). The Evolution and Role of Administration in Anatolia: A Mirror of Different Degrees and Models of Centralisation. In: Balza, M.E., Giorgieri, M., & Mora, C. eds. Archives, Depots and Storehouses in the Hittite World: New Evidence and New Research. Italian University Press, Italy.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, MacMillan Press, London.
Herzog, T.R., Herbert, E.J., Kaplan, R, & Crooks, C.L. (2000). Cultural and Developmental Comparisons of Landscape Perceptions and Preferences. Environment and Behaviour, 32(3): 323-346.
Howard, P.J. (2011). An introduction to Landscape. England: Ashgate.
Human Landscape Perception. (2013). Report on understanding human landscape perception and how to integrate and implement this in current policy strategies, AONB High Weald Press, UK [online] [accessed 14 04 2020]. Available at: < https://www.highweald.org/downloads/publications/uk-landscape-research reports/1057-human-landscape-perception-of-the-high-weald/file.html>
Hunziker, M., Buchecker, M,. & Hartig, T. (2007). Space and Place – Two Aspects of the Human-landscape Relationship. In: Kienast F., Wildi O., Ghosh S. eds. A Changing World. Landscape Series, Springer Press, Dordrecht.
Jacobs, M. (2006). The Production of Mindscapes. A Comprehensive Theory of Landscape Experience [online]. PhD thesis, University of Wageningen [accessed 10 September 2019]. Available at: < https://edepot.wur.nl/40182>.
Johnson, M. (2007). Ideas of Landscape. Blackwell: Oxford.
Johnson, L., & Hunn, E. (2010). Landscape Ethnoecology; New York: Berghahn.
Kaplan, R., & Herbert, E.J. (1987). Cultural and Sub-Cultural Comparisons in Preferences for Natural Settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14:281-293.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Lowenthal, D. (1975). Past time present place: landscape and memory. The Geographical Review, 65 (1):1-36.
Lowenthal, D. (1985). The past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Lydon, M. F. (2002). (Re)presenting the Living Landscape: Exploring Community Mapping as a Tool for Transformative Learning and Planning. Master thesis, University of Victoria. [accessed 10 November 2019]. Available at: < https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/handle/1828/15>.
Lydon, M. (2003). Community mapping: The recovery (and discovery) of our common ground. Geomatica, 57(2): 131-143.
Lyons, E. (1983). Demographic Correlates of Landscape Preference. Environment and Behaviour, 15(4): 487–511.
Macinnes, L. (2003). Historic Landscape Characterization, In: Bishop. K and Phillips. A, eds. Countryside Planning: New Approaches to Management and Conservation, New York: Taylor & Francis Press.
Macpherson, H. (2005). Landscape’s ocular-centrism-and beyond? In: B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry and P. Opdam, eds. From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning. Aspects of Integration, Education and Application, Netherlands: Springer Press.
Matijosaitiene, I., Ucan, O., & Minasyan, A. 2014. Cultural Differences in Landscape Perception, Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering, 3 (8): 16-25.
Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980). Genius Loci-Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture, New York: Rizzoli.
Offen, K., & H. (2003). Narrating Place and Identity, or Mapping Miskitu Land Claims in Northeastern Nicaragua. Human Organization, 62(4):382–392.
Panek, J., & Sobotova, L. (2015). Community Mapping in Urban Informal Settlements: Examples from Nairobi, Kenya, The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries (EJISDC), 68 (1): 1-13.
Parker, B. (2006). Constructing community through maps? Power and praxis in community mapping. Professional Geographer, 58(4):470-484.
Perkins, C. (2007). Community Mapping. The Cartographic Journal, 44(2):127-137.
Perera, D., & Chandrasekara, D. P. (2017, November 10-11). Influence of Gender on Perception of Landscape: A Study of Viharamahadevi Park in Colombo. [Paper presentation]. 22nd International Forestry and Environment Symposium, Gangodawila, Sri Lanka
Priego, C., Breuste, J.H., & Rojas, J. (2008). Perception References and Value of Nature in Urban Landscapes: A Comparative Analysis of Cities in Germany, Chile and Spain. Landscape Online, 7:1-22.
ScARF. (2012). Modern Panel Report. C. Dalglish and S. Tarlow (eds), People and Landscape, Perceived Landscapes: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. [online] [accessed 14 April 2020]. Available at: <https://scarf.scot/national/scarf-modern-panel-report/8-people-and-landscape/8-3-perceived-landscapes/>.
Schenberg, T.B. (2008). Differences and Similarities in Perception of Landscape Photographs Between American-English, Spanish-Catalan and Russian Speakers. Ann Arbor: ProQuest.
Schmidt, K. (2007). Göbekli Tepe En Eski Tapınağı Yapanlar. In: Göbekli Tepe Oldest Temple Builders, trans. by R.Aslan. Istanbul: Archeology and Art Publications.
Shropshire County Council, (2007). Shropshire Landscape Assessment and Shropshire Historical Landscape Characterisation Report. [online] [accessed 10 March 2020]. Available at: <https://www.shropshire.gov.uk/environment/landscape/historic-landscape-characterisation/>.
Stular, B. (2011). Historic Landscape Characterisation, Varstvo Spomenikov (Journal for the Protection of Monuments), 46: 133-144.
Taylor, N. (1998). Urban Planning Theory Since 1945, Sage Publications, London.
Thayer, R. L. (1994). Gray World, Green Heart: Technology, Nature and the Sustainable Landscape, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Thomas, J. (2012). Archaeologies of place and landscape. In. I. Hodder, eds. Archaeological Theory Today, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. (2000). Space and Place the Perspective of Experience, Universite of Minnesota Press, ABD.
Turgut, S., & Seçilmişler, T. (2017). Katılımcı Planlama Deneyimi: Mersin İl Çevre Düzeni Planı Örneği. Megaron, 12(2).
Tudor, C. (2014). Core Document: An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment [online]. England: Natural England Press [accessed 10 April 2020]. Available at: < https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691184/landscape-character-assessment.pdf>.
Turner, S. (2006). Historic Landscape Characterisation: A Landscape Archaeology for Research, Management and Planning, Landscape Research, 31 (4): 385-398.
UNDP, (1998). (United Nations Development Programme), Empowering People: A Guide to Participation, Available at: <http://www.undp.org/undp/csopp>.
UNECSO, (2014). Tentative List. Archaeological Site of Arslantepe, [accessed 16 May 2020]. Available at: <https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5908/>.
UNHCR, A. (2008). A Community-Based Approach in UNHCR Operations Report. [online] [accessed 4 October 2010]. Available at:< https://www.unhcr.org/publications/legal/47ed0e212/community-based-approach-unhcr-operations.html>.
Vale of Glamorgan Council, (2017). Community Mapping Toolkit. Booklet. [online] [accessed 8 February 2020]. Available at: < https://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/Documents/Working/Regeneration/Rural%20Regeneration/community-mapping/community-mapping-booklet-web-english.pdf>.
Yang, B., & Kaplan, R. (1990). The Perception of Landscape Style: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Landscape and Urban Planning, 19(1990):251-262.
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.
Warren, C. (2013). Community Mapping, Local Planning and Alternative Land Use Strategies in Bali, Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 105 (1):29-41.
Wartmann, F.M., & Purves, S.R. (2017). What’s (Not) on the Map: Landscape Features from Participatory Sketch Mapping Differ from Local Categories Used in Language, Land, 6 (79):1-16.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
COPYRIGHT POLICY
1. The International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) open access articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license lets the author to share (copy and redistribute) his/her article in any medium or format.
2. ICONARP cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
The author must give appropriate credit, provide a link to ICONARP, and indicate if changes were made on the article. The author may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the ICONARP endorses the author or his/her use.
The author may not use the article for commercial purposes.
If the author remix, transform, or build upon the article, s/he may not distribute the modified material.
The author may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues.
The author may use the Article within his/her employer’s institution or company for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs.
3. The author authorizes the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) to exclusively publish online his/her Article, and to post his/her biography at the end of the article, and to use the articles.
4. The author agrees to the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) using any images from the Article on the cover of the Journal, and in any marketing material.
5. As the author, copyright in the Article remains in his/her name.
6. All papers should be submitted electronically. All submitted manuscripts must be original work that is not under submission at another journal or under consideration for publication in another form, such as a monograph or chapter of a book. Authors of submitted papers are obligated not to submit their paper for publication elsewhere until an editorial decision is rendered on their submission. Further, authors of accepted papers are prohibited from publishing the results in other publications that appear before the paper is published in the Journal.
ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning is an OAJ supported by 