Visual perception of urban greening in public parks: evidence from Trabzon City, Turkey

    Nilgun Guneroglu Affiliation
    ; Makbulenur Bekar Affiliation


Urban parks are of the most important components of green infrastructure in cities. Number and size of green areas decrease especially due to increase in population and urbanization. Urban parks rank first among green areas that increase and improve the quality of life in cities. Urban parks are places where people can commune with nature and spend their free time for leisure. Accessibility of urban parks, their recreational facilities and space identity are very effective on satisfaction of users. This study is about EYOF Park in Trabzon city. Visual perception analysis carried out using landscape quality criteria. User satisfaction was analyzed with statistical analyses. As a result of analysis, the highest correlations were found between “color” and “texture” (r = 0.790). The most important reasons of park visit was found to be for “relaxing” purposes, moreover “lack of car park” was stated as the most important problem for the park.

Keyword : urbanization, urban parks, user satisfaction, space quality

How to Cite
Guneroglu, N., & Bekar, M. (2022). Visual perception of urban greening in public parks: evidence from Trabzon City, Turkey. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 30(1), 124-134.
Published in Issue
Feb 8, 2022
Abstract Views
PDF Downloads
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Aytaş, İ., & Uzun, S. (2015). Determining visual landscape quality of pedestrian areas in Düzce city center. Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul Unıversity, 65(1), 11–29.

Bahriny, F., & Bell, S. (2020). Patterns of urban park use and their relationship to factors of quality: A case study of Tehran, Iran. Sustainability, 12(4), 1560.

Bayramoğlu, N. (2010). Urban identity in the context of users perception: Barbaros Boulevard-Büyükdere street urban axis [Master’s thesis]. Istanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology.

Carmona, M., Heath T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2003). Public places urban spaces. Architectural Press.

Central Park Conservancy. (2018). Central park conservancy/About us.

Çayır, A. S. (2004). Users evaluation of green areas in beyoglu: Example of Gümüşsuyu, Sururi and Hasköy Parks [Master’s thesis]. Istanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology.

Dihkan, M., Güneroğlu, N., Güneroğlu, A., & Karslı, F. (2017). The need for ecosystem-based coastal planning in Trabzon City. International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics, 4(3), 193–205.

Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings: Using public space. Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Island Press.

Gehl, J., & Gemzøe, L. (2001). New city spaces. Danish Architectural Press.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2020). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference. Routledge.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press.

Gökyer, E., & Bilgili, B. (2014). A research on assessment of accessibility of green areas: The case of Bartın province. SDU Faculty of Forestry Journal, 15(2), 140–147.

Güneroğlu, N. (2017). The effect of restoration process on riparian landscapes. Artvin Coruh University Journal of Forestry Faculty, 18(1), 10–20.

Gürer, N., & Uğurlar, A. (2017). User satisfaction in urban parks: Ankara Kuğulu park case. Megaron, 12(3), 443–459.

Hayta, Y., & Altan, Y. (2016). Urban life perceptions and changing urban life styles: İzmir example. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 4(33), 223–258.

Herrington, S. (2015). Fraternally yours: The union architecture of Oskar Stonorov and Walter Reuther. Social History, 40(3), 360–384.

Huot, J. L., Thalmann, J. P., Valbelle, D., & Girgin, A. B. (2000). The birth of cities. Imge Publishing.

Hunziker, M., & Kienast, F. (1999). Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty – a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landscape Ecology, 14(2), 161–176.

İnceoğlu, M., & Aytuğ, A. (2009). The concept of urban space quality. Megaron, 4(3), 131–146.

Jahani, A., & Saffariha, M. (2020). Aesthetic preference and mental restoration prediction in urban parks: An application of environmental modeling approach. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 54, 126775.

Karakurt, E. (2006). Suggestions for organizing urban space: Modern urban planning understanding and postmodern urban planning understanding. Erciyes University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 26, 1–25.

Liu, C., Qi, T., & Ma, X. (2016). The research on the impact assessment of visual landscape of country parks in Beijing. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 24(1), 37–47.

Lynch, K. (1973). The image of the city. MIT Press.

Müderrisoğlu, H., Yerli, Ö., Turan, A. A., & Duru, N. (2005). Determination of user satisfaction in Abant nature park by using ROS method. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 11(4), 397–405.

Ostoić, S. K., van den Bosch, C. C. K., Vuletić, D., Stevanov, M., Živojinović, I., Mutabdžija-Bećirović, S., Lazarevic, J., Stojanova, B., Blagojevic, D., Stojanovska, M., Nevenic, R., & Malovrh, Š. P. (2017). Citizens’ perception of and satisfaction with urban forests and green space: Results from selected Southeast European cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 23, 93–103.

Özgeriş, M., & Karahan, F. (2015). A study on visual quality assessment in recreational facilities: Sample of Tortum and Uzundere (Erzurum). Artvin Coruh University Journal of Forestry Faculty, 16(1), 40–49.

Polat, A. T., & Akay, A. (2015). Relationships between the visual preferences of urban recreation area users and various landscape design elements. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(3), 573–582.

Project for Public Spaces. (2005). What makes a place great.

Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form: Towards a man – environment approach to urban form and design. Pergamon Press.

San Francisco Recreation and Parks. (2018). Discover Golden Gate Park.

Şahan, M. (2016). Review on relationship between sculpture and environment in urban area. Anadolu University Journal of Art & Design, 6(2), 92–109.

Santos, T., Mendes, R. N., & Vasco, A. (2016). Recreational activities in urban parks: Spatial interactions among users. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 15, 1–9.

Topal, A. K. (2004). What is the conceptual of city and where is the city in Turkey? Dokuz Eylul University the Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 6(1), 276–294.

Ülkeryıldız, R. E. (2009). Political tactics in building construction industry from the architects’ perspectives [Master’s thesis]. İzmir Institute of Technology.

Uzgören, G., & Erdönmez, M. E. (2017). A comparative study on the relationship between the quality of space and urban activities in the public open spaces. Megaron, 12(1), 41–56.

Uzun, S. (2005). User satisfaction on rural and urban parks; the example of Gölcük rural recreation area and İnönü park [Master’s thesis]. Abant İzzet Baysal University, Institute of Science and Technology.

Uzun, S., & Müderrisoğlu, H. (2010). User satisfaction in rural recreation areas: The example of Bolu Gölcük forest-recreation area. SDU Faculty of Forestry Journal, 11(1), 67–82.

Vondel Park. (2018). World’s 20 largest city parks “Vondelpark”.

Wey, W. M., & Wei, W. L. (2016). Urban street environment design for quality of urban life. Social Indicators Research, 126(1), 161–186.

Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough”. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244.

Zhang, S., & Zhou, W. (2018). Recreational visits to urban parks and factors affecting park visits: Evidence from geotagged social media data. Landscape and Urban Planning, 180, 27–35.