Evaluation of illuminated city parks by users: Meydan park and Atapark examples

With this study, it is aimed to investigate the effects of illumination in urban park areas on the user, inquire about liking and preferences of the users about illumination and examine the aesthetic effect of the current design on users. In this respect, two urban parks were chosen as the study ar...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Banu Çiçek Kurdoğlu, Tuğba Üstün Topal
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi 2017-11-01
Series:Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi
Subjects:
Online Access:http://ofd.artvin.edu.tr/issue/31062/289510
id doaj-ce3387358091408a89030ec59759bc12
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ce3387358091408a89030ec59759bc122020-11-25T01:02:20ZengArtvin Çoruh ÜniversitesiArtvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi2146-698X2146-698X2017-11-0118213715110.17474/artvinofd.289510Evaluation of illuminated city parks by users: Meydan park and Atapark examplesBanu Çiçek KurdoğluTuğba Üstün TopalWith this study, it is aimed to investigate the effects of illumination in urban park areas on the user, inquire about liking and preferences of the users about illumination and examine the aesthetic effect of the current design on users. In this respect, two urban parks were chosen as the study area which have similar characteristics in terms of their usage principles, their location, accessibility and qualities in the city, but with two different approaches: traditional and modern, in terms of lighting types and techniques used. For this purpose, a questionnaire which prepared about lighting design was applied to their own users of both parks. After asking questions to identify users and determine their usage, "Semantic differentiation scale" was used for the semantic assessment of illuminated place components and elements of the two parks (pedestrian paths and ladders, seating areas, etc.) by the users. As a result of the statistical analysis of the data, it was seen that 75% of Meydan Park and 76% of Atapark are safe, place components and elements respectively for both parks, seating areas are reassuring with values of 3.46, 3.21; resting with 3.38, 3.34; moving with 3.25, 3.04; water elements reassuring with 3.68, 3.60; herbal elements were reassuring with 3.13, 3.02, effective with 3.04, 3.12, refreshing with 3.19, 3.09. These results show that although Meydan Park and Atapark differ in terms of lighting types and techniques, this does not cause great differences in terms of contribution from the security, aesthetics and economics, and similarly there is no big difference in users' liking and preferences related to lightinghttp://ofd.artvin.edu.tr/issue/31062/289510LightingUrban parkQuestionnaireMeydan ParkAtaparkTrabzon
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Banu Çiçek Kurdoğlu
Tuğba Üstün Topal
spellingShingle Banu Çiçek Kurdoğlu
Tuğba Üstün Topal
Evaluation of illuminated city parks by users: Meydan park and Atapark examples
Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi
Lighting
Urban park
Questionnaire
Meydan Park
Atapark
Trabzon
author_facet Banu Çiçek Kurdoğlu
Tuğba Üstün Topal
author_sort Banu Çiçek Kurdoğlu
title Evaluation of illuminated city parks by users: Meydan park and Atapark examples
title_short Evaluation of illuminated city parks by users: Meydan park and Atapark examples
title_full Evaluation of illuminated city parks by users: Meydan park and Atapark examples
title_fullStr Evaluation of illuminated city parks by users: Meydan park and Atapark examples
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of illuminated city parks by users: Meydan park and Atapark examples
title_sort evaluation of illuminated city parks by users: meydan park and atapark examples
publisher Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi
series Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi
issn 2146-698X
2146-698X
publishDate 2017-11-01
description With this study, it is aimed to investigate the effects of illumination in urban park areas on the user, inquire about liking and preferences of the users about illumination and examine the aesthetic effect of the current design on users. In this respect, two urban parks were chosen as the study area which have similar characteristics in terms of their usage principles, their location, accessibility and qualities in the city, but with two different approaches: traditional and modern, in terms of lighting types and techniques used. For this purpose, a questionnaire which prepared about lighting design was applied to their own users of both parks. After asking questions to identify users and determine their usage, "Semantic differentiation scale" was used for the semantic assessment of illuminated place components and elements of the two parks (pedestrian paths and ladders, seating areas, etc.) by the users. As a result of the statistical analysis of the data, it was seen that 75% of Meydan Park and 76% of Atapark are safe, place components and elements respectively for both parks, seating areas are reassuring with values of 3.46, 3.21; resting with 3.38, 3.34; moving with 3.25, 3.04; water elements reassuring with 3.68, 3.60; herbal elements were reassuring with 3.13, 3.02, effective with 3.04, 3.12, refreshing with 3.19, 3.09. These results show that although Meydan Park and Atapark differ in terms of lighting types and techniques, this does not cause great differences in terms of contribution from the security, aesthetics and economics, and similarly there is no big difference in users' liking and preferences related to lighting
topic Lighting
Urban park
Questionnaire
Meydan Park
Atapark
Trabzon
url http://ofd.artvin.edu.tr/issue/31062/289510
work_keys_str_mv AT banucicekkurdoglu evaluationofilluminatedcityparksbyusersmeydanparkandataparkexamples
AT tugbaustuntopal evaluationofilluminatedcityparksbyusersmeydanparkandataparkexamples
_version_ 1725205501241720832