See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309285040

Urban Green Areas and Design Principles

Chapter · October 2016

CITATIONS READS

6 18,638

2 authors:

Serap Yılmaz Sema Mumcu

Karadeniz Technical University Karadeniz Technical University
97 PUBLICATIONS   367 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   238 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Natural waterfronts of Trabzon in the past and community's relatioship with these places View project

APPLICATION OF GESTALT PRINCIPLES IN PLANTING DESIGN View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Serap Yılmaz on 19 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 6

Urban Green Areas and Design Principles

Serap YILMAZ*, Sema MUMCU**

INTRODUCTION
The importance of cities has increased significantly over the centuries; however,
the transition from rural life to urban civilization led both social and environmental
impacts (Woolley, 2003). This situation has caused urban landscape to be in a constant
state of change and transformation. Roger et al. (1999) described the important factors
which influence the change of urban landscape by the following three factors (cited in
Thompson, 2002):
 The technical revolution, focused on information technology and changed from
global to local networks connecting people;
 The ecological threat, with its implications for the importance of sustainable
development;
 The social transformation, with life patterns reflecting increasing life
expectancy and new lifestyle choices.
The growth of urban populations and associated industrialization has resulted in a
range of detrimental and often negative outcomes for mankind (Woolley, 2003). The
environmental problems caused by the change of urban landscape are summarized as air
and water pollution, waste materials, noise, the consumption of natural areas for urban
development, deterioration in the quality of urban life and the decrease in the urban
landscape (Woolley, 2003).
Urban green areas are highly valued by urban and landscape designers for their
contribution to the quality of life in cities. In many aspects, nature plays a crucial role in
everyday life of people. Natural environments fascinate human beings (Kaplan, 1983;
Kaplan, 1977; Kaplan & Talbot, 1983). “Access to natural open spaces is a central
value in modern society”. Moreover, urban green areas are associated with personal and
social meanings. They provide a context for social interaction; serve as tangible
reminders of childhood and memories of community life, and offer “gateways” or
opportunities for people to escape for a while from the stress of urban life (Burgess et
al., 1988).
At the preliminary stage of this interaction, urban green areas that are close to the
city-dwellers come on the scene. Urban green areas provide affordances for urban
people to become closer to nature and enable them to contact with nature, these areas
provide the sense for exploring of human nature (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1978).
Consequently, urban green areas are one of the most important urban components that
change the urban silhouette and affect the physical and psychological quality of life of
*
Assist. Prof. Dr., Karadeniz Technical University, Forestry Faculty, Department of
Landscape Architecture
**
Assist. Prof. Dr., Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Forestry, Department of
Landscape Architecture
the city-dweller. Therefore, their formation and the values they include have been
differentiated and renovated according to the changing needs of the society. These
spatial changes in urban green areas affect the mission and functions of the cities and
the urban silhouette. Thus, the answers to the questions of what the meanings and
values assumed by the urban green areas are and how they will be designed are
important.
Urban Green Areas
Industrial Revolution and the widespread urbanization in the 19th century resulted
in the loss of natural areas from the cities and losing the place of nature in daily life.
The need for allocating more spaces to natural areas in cities has begun to be supported
by this change, and the concept of "urban green area" has emerged as an important
element of the cities (Özgüner, 2003). The first definition of urban green areas was
made by American landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted who was affected by the
public-open space movement in England by the Boston Park System that was formed in
the 19th century. Olmsted defined the approach of introducing the nature that begins
with Central and Prospect Parks in New York City as the "lungs of the city" (Francis et
al., 1984). In particular, the open spaces that could not respond to the recreational needs
of the people living in the community buildings that were created after the Second
World War led to make mention of urban green areas. After this period, in the 1970s,
urban open spaces came to the forefront with green space features and led to the
comprehensive definition of urban green areas by creating the landscape framework of
the cities.

Figure 1. Urban green areas

Today, urban green areas are the areas that contribute to people from physical and
mental aspects, where recreational needs are met, the community identity is
strengthened and which are developed and organized by being considered along with
the structure masses. Urban green areas are an important indicator of the quality of life
of a city, and the green spaces designed in urban spaces characterized by social and
spatial differences have an important potential as an equalizer (Wright Wendel et al.,
2012). With these features, green spaces are one of the most important components of
the whole constituting the urban areas for the continuation of the urban quality of life
and ecological and social sustainability. Because green areas’ structure the people's
welfare, provide ecosystem services (climate regulation, preventing environmental
pollutants, regulating the surface flows), create appropriate places for a healthy life
where neighbours meet and the spirit of being community is strengthened, and promote
resting and thinking about the nature (Chiesura, 2004; Lee & Maheswaran, 2011;
Carrus et al., 2015;. Urban green areas have been included in various typologies with
101
these comprehensive features they include. Green spaces can be classified in different
ways according to usage patterns (active green spaces and passive green spaces),
ecological function (historic gardens, greenbelts surrounding the city, agricultural areas
and buffer greens)and recreational functions (parks, thematic parks and gardens, sports
fields, playgrounds, natural and semi-natural areas, corridors) (Aydemir, 2004). This
study includes the following typology which was developed by Dunnett, et al. (2002)
and consisted of the combination of all classifications, and this typology is explained
with examples in Table 1;
1. Recreational green areas: These kinds of green spaces are primarily designed
for access to both visual comfort and recreational comfort. In particular, they consist of
public places but also include private lands.

Figure 2. Recreational green areas

2. Functional green spaces: Some of these green spaces could be allocated for
recreation and serve for city-dwellers for this purpose, however, their principal purpose
is the function. The purpose of their use by the city-dwellers is the functions they have.
Their basic functions include use for agriculture, horticulture, cemeteries, education and
for other institutions.
3. Semi-natural green spaces: These kinds of green spaces consist of semi-
natural living spaces. These living spaces are created by their transformation into new
living spaces along with the improvement of the rural areas prior to being included in
urban green areas and of the abandoned or degraded areas. All these habitats may or
may not be accessible to the public, but they make a vital contribution to the urban
landscape.

102
 Table 1. Typology of urban green areas
MAIN TYPES OF GREEN AREAS
Parks and Gardens
Functional green area Amenity green areas
Informal Recreation Areas
Recreation Green Area
Outdoor Sports Areas
Play Areas
Incidental Green Area Housing Green Space
Space Other Incidental Space

Private Green Area Domestic Gardens

Remnant Farmland
ALL URBAN GREEN AREAS

Productive Green Area City Farms

Allotments
Cemeteries
Burial Grounds
Churchyards

School Grounds
Institutional Grounds
Other Institutional Grounds

Open/Running Water
Wetland
Marsh, Fen
Semi-natural habitats

Deciduous woodland
Woodland Coniferous woodland
Mixed woodland
Moor/Heath
Other Habitats Grassland
Disturbed Ground
River and Canal Banks
Transport Corridors (road, rail, cycleways
Linear Green Areas
and walking routes)
Other linear features (e.g. cliffs)
4. Linear green spaces: These green spaces are defined by their linear features;
including rivers and streams as well as transportation routes (roads, railways). Although
significant portions of linear green spaces are planned for the recreational purpose and
nature conservation, some of them are also planned to include both features.
Urban green areas serve for common purposes although they are defined by
different types. They provide users shadow physical comfort such as clean air and
resting places, and formal or informal social interactions such as a combination of
different social groups and traditions and opportunities regarding the cultural
experience in urban areas (Lawton, 2007). Urban green areas are the places where
community life is taken place. In these places celebrations takes place, children develop
skills, seasons are recognized and the cultures are merged. In these places friends meet
each other and the social and economic exchanges take place (Project for Public Space,
2000). These roles, played by urban green areas, provide various benefits to the life of
city-dwellers and the also to sustainability of cities. These benefits are classified as:
 The benefits to mental (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010; Mackay and Neill, 2010;

103
Barton and Pretty, 2010) and physical health (De Vries and Verheij, 2003; Mackay
and Neill, 2010 )
 Economical benefits ( Jim and Chen, 2006; Tajima, 2003)
 Social benefits (Dwyer et al., 1991; Jim & Chen, 2009; Kamierczak, 2013)
 Environmental benefits (Chiesura, 2004; Gidlöf-Gunnarsson and Öhrström,
2007; Niemelä, 2014).
Benefits of Urban Green Areas
Along with the ongoing urbanization movement, urban spaces are expanded
without thinking the green space development, and rural lands are transformed into built
up areas (Kabisch et al., 2015). Therefore, while urban green areas were recreative and
symbolic places where people provide their food (Groening & Bulmahn, 1989) in the
past, today they are considered as a way to ensure the individual's relation with the
nature, to bring the natural life into the city and to make cities more livable. Urban
green areas have been the most important components of the city that mean a lot as
spaces where people have existed in every moment of life by transforming sometimes
into landscapes which are just watched for the city-dwellers, sometimes into parks
where the life is shared and people get rid of the stress of daily life, sometimes into
shelter for children, and into playgrounds. This situation has made the benefits provided
by urban green areas to city-dwellers an important issue, and the benefits provided by
green areas have been explained by various classifications. Mostyn (1979) defined the
benefits of being in nature for people as emotional (the comfort felt by being away from
the city, opportunities to identify with the nature, the feeling of freedom, a peaceful
shelter to compensate emotions, self-esteem and the sense of achievement), intellectual
(investigating the nature, obtaining information about the vegetation cover and animal
diversity, learning the local history and gaining new skills), social (better recognition of
people, enjoying the team and community spirit, becoming more responsible citizens)
and physical (it appeals to the senses, feeling energetic, a safe place to do exercises and
play games) benefits (Özgüner, 2004; Kendle & Forbes 1997; Beer, 1990). Dunnett et
al. (2002) defined the benefits of urban green areas as social (healthy life, education and
socialization), environmental (contribution to biodiversity, contribution to landscape
and cultural heritage, reduction noise level, improvement of the air quality and climate)
and economical (attracting the inward investment, protecting the businesses, supporting
tourism to create employment opportunities and increasing value of the surrounding
property) benefits.  Byrne & Sipe 2010) defined the benefits of urban green areas as
ecological (protecting biodiversity and living spaces, regulating temperature, noise
reduction and air filtration), social (improving the physiological and psychological
health, contribution to child development, providing social interaction) and economical
(promoting to tourism, contribution to the economy by lowering the temperature and
reducing pollution) benefits. Within the scope of this study, the benefits of urban green
areas for people are grouped as the following;
1. Health benefits
Urban green areas create a feeling of satisfaction in the individual along with
escaping from the difficulties of the living environments and the active participation
into nature by ensuring people working in a busy schedule to get rid of their daily
fatigue and noise of the city. To touch, see, hear and smell the elements that constitute

104
the natural world can make people get rid of their thoughts, refresh people, and provide
them with a sense of peace and calmness (Kaplan, 1983). Therefore, the presence of
urban green areas is an important element for the quality of life of the city-dweller.
They serve for their users as "green sports facilities" (Orr et al., 2014), and the activities
they contain are grouped as free activity (walking, exercising in natural areas) and
organized activity (more formal, regular physical activities, organized sports) (Wheater
et al., 2007).
Along with their physical activity opportunities, urban green areas positively affect
the physiological and psychological health of the city-dwellers. Because going to
natural areas improves the general health perception of the individual (Byrne & Sipe,
2010), increases the physical activity levels (Gidlöf- Gunnarsson & Öhrström, 2007;
Bertrama & Rehdanz, 2015) and also contributes to the individual's future health by the
physical activity opportunities (Orr et al., 2014). Otherwise, poor quality urban areas
lacking green areas indirectly affect the physical health of the individuals of city-
dwellers; and the negative emotions caused by mental stress lead to cardiovascular
diseases by increasing the blood pressure of the individual and negatively affect the
mental health of the individual due to asthma, cancer and metabolic disorders (Lawton,
2007).
Benefits of urban green areas to physiological health:
 Accelerate recovering from various types of cancer (Byrne & Sipe, 2010),
 Decrease the chronic health risks such as nervous system damage and heavy
metal poisoning (Wright, 2011),
 Allow people to fight against obesity and heart disease caused by sedentary
lifestyle (Byrne & Sipe, 2010),
 Improve the general state of health (De Vries et al., 2003; Maas et al., 2006),
 Prolong the life span (Takano et al., 2002; Schipperijn et al.,2010) and
 Lower the blood pressure (Qin et al., 2013).
Benefits of urban green areas to psychological health:
The effects of urban green areas on psychological health can be classified under
five main headings (Rohde & Kendle, 1994):
 Emotional; they decrease the stress, increase individual's positive feelings about
himself (Ulrich et al., 1991; Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2003; Ulrich, 2006; Nielsen &
Hansen, 2007; Byrne & Sipe, 2010), positively affect the individual's experiences that
renew and offer health (Hartig et al., 2003; Van den Berg et al., 2010).
 Cognitive; they reduce mental fatigue and refresh the attention (Kaplan &
Kaplan, 1989),
 Developmental; they support children's healthy development by encouraging a
higher level of mental activity in them (Özgüner, 2003).
 Behavioral; they increase the exploratory and adventurous attitude supporting or
forming the self-esteem.
 Social; they facilitate natural environment interaction, promote communication
between social boundaries and even provide a wider social responsibility in some cases.
2. Economical benefits
Benefits of urban green areas to the city;
 Creation of job opportunities, providing services to local, regional people and

105
tourists in green areas, employment of people responsible for the maintenance of these
areas (Dunnett et al., 2002; Wright, 2011 ),
 Creation of general economic impacts; green areas attract investments by
increasing the quality of the areas where they exist, increase the values of those areas in
particular, increase the values of the real estates in their surroundings and support the
local economies (Woolley, 2003; Byrne & Sipe, 2010; Wright, 2011; Jim & Chen,
2006; Kabisch et al., 2015),
 The well planned and designed green areas that increase attractiveness of the
city contribute to tourism and thus economy (Dunnett et al., 2002; Byrne & Sipe, 2010),
 The presence of green areas decreases the heating and cooling costs of the
buildings by their climate balancing features and reduces the negative effects caused by
them (Byrne & Sipe, 2010).
3. Social benefits
Green areas have two functions in terms of social life: green areas provide people
with the opportunity to feel the comfort outside their living spaces and thus make them
feel that they are associated with a greater social system. These areas allow an
individual to be alone as well as allowing him to share life with many people; and even
they sometimes include places that will allow an individual to be alone in the crowds
(Thompson, 2002; Jim & Chen, 2009; Byrne & Sipe, 2010). Secondly, green areas
serve as the gathering place for people to communicate with each other; people become
acquainted with others, young people get rid of the heavy responsibilities even just for a
while (Burgess et al., 1988). The studies carried out indicate that the relationships with
people, spaces and events contribute to the feelings of being familiar with the
community and belonging to the community. The spaces that help to shape community's
attitudes and to develop the identity of the community and that provide continuity from
the past to present become important for neighbors and obtain a social value and
meaning (Chang, 2002; Mehta, 2007; Project for Public Space, 2000). They strengthen
the sense of belonging, the sense of being a community and the neighborhoods by
gathering together all sections of the community in urban green areas regardless of
social status (Bertram & Rehdanz, 2015; Kabisch, 2015; Barrera et al., 2016). Thus,
urban green areas can also be useful for social welfare by increasing the sense of social
cohesion and identity (Bertram & Rehdanz, 2015).
Urban green areas are shared with strangers, and thus people with different
religions, cultural and political values are existed together. Along with all these
features, green areas serve a function which is important for the self-definition of the
community.
Social benefits provided by the urban green areas:
 They play a "social solidarity-enhancing" role by creating a kind of living space
for all sections of the community (Wheater et al., 2007).
 Green areas structure the social participation because they are free of charge
and accessible to everyone (Byrne & Sipe, 2010), and they increase the social
interactions and values by supporting the interpersonal communication and interaction
(Özgüner, 2004) through removing the boundaries between social classes (Jim & Chen,
2009).
 Green areas provide a neutral ground which is available to all sections of the

106
community and can become the focus of community spirit by numerous and various
possibilities offered for social interaction (Byrne & Sipe, 2010; Bertram & Rehdanz,
2015; Kabisch, 2015; Barrera et al., 2016)
 Green areas strengthen the integration of the community and the neighborhoods
(Barrera et al., 2016)
 Green areas structure the child development by providing children with the
opportunity to have energetic playgrounds based on imagination with the facilities in
the outer space, and ensure that children interact with adults (Woolley, 2003). This
situation positively affects the children's social and cognitive development, teaches
them the social values and coping with difficulties, and gives them physical and mental
health (Wheater et al., 2007). Consequently, urban green areas allow children to be
included in the community as individuals who can establish healthy and social
relationships.

Figure 3. Socialization affordances of urban green areas

4. Environmental benefits
The environmental benefits of urban green areas are associated with features of
climate and environmental improvement (Woolley, 2003), providing opportunities for
habitats (Woolley, 2003), improving aesthetic appearance (McCormack et al., 2010;
Sugiyama et al., 2010), improving the urban landscape and the city's livability.
Climate and environmental improvement:
 They play a role in improving the urban air quality, improving the urban
climate and decreasing the noise level (Gidlöf- Gunnarsson & Öhrström, 2007).
 Urban green areas create cool urban spaces and mitigate the urban heat island
effect (Lawton, 2007).
 The plants that constitute the urban green areas reduce the air pollution by
seizing the particles, absorbing the heavy metals and polluting gasses and assuming the
task of filtering air (Dunnett et al., 2002; Lawton, 2007).
107
  They reduce the negative effect of urban area on natural water sources by
ensuring the absorption and retention of rain waters, and they control the water regime
(Chiesura, 2004; Niemelä, 2014).
Providing opportunities for habitats:
 Green areas play an important role in the protection of natural habitats with the
natural life corridors and urban forests they create. Thus, urban green areas ensure the
continuity of the species and the continuity of the city's biodiversity by creating a
habitat for the presence of natural plants and animals (De La Barreraa et al., 2016;
Dunnett et al., 2002).
Improving aesthetic appearance:
The aesthetic quality of an environment may affect the experience-welfare in this
environment, and the sense of well-being (Nasar, 1988). Therefore, the sensations and
visual information that the individual receives from the environment are extremely
important for aesthetic evaluations. The rapid urban development has resulted in urban
appearances consisting of many building blocks. The cold and ugly effects caused by
these buildings are embellished with the natural elements (tree, water, landform, grass
surfaces...) that the green areas contain. Urban green areas arouse a sense of mystery in
watchers by an enriched landscape pattern that is created with natural elements they
contain (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Consequently, the perceptual information obtained
from the surrounding is also enriched by enriching the watcher's field of view. Well
planned green areas ensure individuals experience both a large space and a space that
contains a depth. The damages to the aesthetic perception by the mass development in
our day (Nohl, 2001) can be improved by successfully designed urban green areas.

Figure 4. Natural areas in urban green spaces

Aesthetic contributions provided by urban green areas to the city:
They create a sense of space and perspective around the buildings (Wheater,
2007).
 Green areas increase the aesthetic quality of the urban environment with their
physical functions such as the regulation of the urban texture and the stabilization of
density, and the natural landscape components they contain (Dunnet et al., 2002).
 They bring identity and character to the city (Aydemir, 2004).
 Green areas soften the monotonous structure of the city. They balance the
measurement contrast between nature and human (Aydemir, 2004) and contribute to the
urban aesthetics and the psychology of the city-dwellers.

108
 Improving the urban landscape and the city's livability:
 Urban green areas can provide the sustainability of the aesthetics and
naturalness of the urban landscape by softening the city's large firm ground.
 The fact that the crowded cities full of high-rise buildings are dark and
shadowy deprives the city of air and light. This situation not only affects the quality of
social life but also the atmosphere and livability of the city as a whole (Chang, 2002).
Urban green areas allow cities to breathe and make them livable by creating definable
spaces in cities.
 The trees, which are the vertical elements of urban green areas, give color to
urban landscape by their seasonal changes and add texture by their leaves, and they also
bring a depth and sense of wonder to the urban space by creating vistas. Therefore, the
urban parks and urban green areas which are included in the formation of green areas in
cities have a great importance for the quality of life of the urbanized community.
Studies have shown that the presence of natural values (urban parks, forests, and green
bands etc.) and the components of these (water, plants etc.) contribute to the quality of
life in cities (Chiesura, 2004).
 Urban green areas provide people living in the city with social and physical
activity opportunities by the open spaces created by them in the city (Wan & Shen,
2015). These areas that bring people together for walking, resting, playing and watching
the environment (Halprin, 1981; Wright Wendel et al., 2012) increase the city's
livability (Woolley 2003).
 The landmarks and historical places which are the important elements of the
urban identity disappear among the high-rise buildings that define the urban silhouette.
Urban green areas create environmental images for individuals and strengthen the
spatial perception by providing the perception of the landmarks and historical places.
They ensure the transfer of historical experiences in those spaces to people, improve the
users' mental images related to that space, create the feeling of confidence and
familiarity related to that space in people, and therefore make the city more livable for
the city-dwellers (Yılmaz, 2009).
Design of Urban Green Areas
Nasar (1988) reported that people pay attention to the visual quality of their
surroundings, and designers will more successfully design environments which are in
better conformity with the preferences and activities of users by knowing the features of
the relationship between human emotion and visual environment. This will also
contribute to the development of the quality of life over time because the aesthetic
quality of an environment may affect the experience-welfare in this environment, and
the sense of well-being. This situation indicates that people will be drawn into an
environment they like, and they will stay away from an unsatisfactory environment
(Nasar, 1988). Kaplan (1987) made a similar remark regarding the preference and
defined the preference as the tendency to make choices that keep individuals out of
unsuitable environments and direct them to the desired one. So, it is very important to
create urban green areas with high levels of use that are preferred by the people and
offer a vivacious appearance by various events and users. This is the only way to design
satisfactory green areas that attract people. The urban green areas the physical,
psychological and economic contributions of which are extremely important for the city
and city-dwellers will lose all these contributions and their values if they do not

109
function successfully. In this context, the answers to the questions of “why do they
show a tendency to prefer some urban green areas to others” and how do people make a
distinction between urban green areas” are very important. This answer is implicit in
revealing how people experience urban green areas and why they prefer them.
Consequently, how the design of green areas preferred by people will be completed and
will be included in this process is also very important.

Figure 5. Aesthetical contributions of urban green areas to cityscape

Which urban green areas are preferred by people?
Multidirectional investigations addressing issues such as what criteria for the
design of urban green areas should be, and the types of users and usages have been
carried out, an attempt to determine the features of the preferred spaces, the interactions
with the environment and the relationships of the people in those spaces have been
made, and new design proposals have been developed in accordance with the findings.
Regarding the studies in which how the use and thus the preference of urban green areas
are increased is revealed;
 Beer (1994) reported the important characters that define the environments
preferred by people as complexity-diversity, mystery, legibility and coherence.
 Naturalness is a feature that positively affects the preference in the
environmental preference and evaluation literature (Hartig, 1993; Kaplan & Kaplan,
1989; Herzog, 1989; Schroeder, 1987; Ulrich, 1983; Ode et al., 2009).
 Depth is a dominant feature that affects the preference decision of the
landscapes (Ulrich, 1983).
 The general principles to guide decisions related to preference were
investigated in the studies of psychological theory and environmental aesthetics, and
four characteristics that affect preference were suggested: naturalness, complexity,
order and legibility (Nasar, 1994; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982).
 Landscape preference is characterized by four variables: complexity (Hagerhall
et al., 2004), mystery (Herzog & Bryce, 2007; Nasar & Cubukcu 2011), legibility
(Herzog & Leverich, 2003) and coherence. (Kaplan & Kaplan 1989; Kaplan et al.,
1998; Kaplan et al., 1972).
 Diversity positively affects the landscape preference (De La Fuente De Val et
al., 2006).
When the results of studies in the literature are evaluated, "naturalness, mystery,

110
legibility, complexity (diversity), coherence (order) and depth" can be evaluated as the
features that will increase the preference of urban green areas. These features are
defined as follows (Table 2):
This information obtained from the literature has shown that the features of
"naturalness, mystery, legibility, complexity, coherence and depth" are very important
in increasing the preference of urban green areas around us. These features are also
extremely important to generate urban green areas with high levels of preference that
evoke a positive psychological effect on the individual. Therefore, the study is built on
how the features of "naturalness, mystery, depth" will be projected to design.
Table 2. Features defining the preference (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan et al., 1998;
Herzog & Leverich, 2003; Yılmaz, 2008)
Legibility Legibility is the ease of classifying and processing the elements that
constitute a view or individual's ease of discovering the environment
without getting lost. The legibility of the space is associated with the
sense of order and clarity it contains.
Complexity Complexity is the diversity of elements that constitute a view and having
enough knowledge that will keep individual interested and concerned.
Diversity stimulates the urge to discover.
Mystery The mystery is a view's potential to provide new information or degree to
arouse curiosity and provide more information. It is necessary to create
fragmental shadings or hidden areas to arouse the individual's curiosity
for an area to create a sense of mysteriousness.
Coherence Coherence is the orderliness or organization level of the elements that
constitute a view because the organization of a coherent space is clear.
The different areas that constitute the space should be perceived
explicitly and clearly. People can easily distinguish these different areas,
and this also paves the way for understanding or making sense of the
space.
Naturalness Naturalness is related to human-made elements, naturalness increases as
the human-made elements decrease. Plants and the continuity in
topography strengthen the naturalness.
Depth Depth is a variable which is associated with visual perception
measurements in the landscape. In a view, the transparency provided by
overlapping forms and the perception of the element that covers behind
the element that is covered on the front ensure the in depth-perception of
the space.
How to design urban green areas?
How can the features of "naturalness, mystery, depth" obtained from preference
studies be projected to the design of urban green areas? By what combination of rules
with space components (plants, topography and water) can a designer make the feel of
the impact that he wants to evoke? In this chapter, answers to these questions were
sought and the following features were obtained by carrying out evaluations for the
design of urban green areas. They were evaluated by subheadings (Table 3).

111
 Table 3. Characteristics regarding the features defining the preference
Features defining the preference Characteristics
• Curved roads
Mystery • Partial closeness
• Depth
• Continuity in the formation of the area plastics
Naturalness
• Continuity in plant texture
• Transparency (transparency provided by the green
texture)
Depth
• Covering (overlapping forms in green texture and area
plastics)
It was aimed to give clues to designers to strengthen the designs for increasing the
"feature of mystery, naturalness and depth", and the following design decisions were
achieved with the help of the relevant literature (Table 4);
Table 4. Design decisions regarding the features defining the preference
Feature Design Decisions
1. Plants will be green and green tone
2. The more natural perception of the space is provided by
the colors, forms and sizes of the plants and the harmonic
Spatial factors that positively relations in the formation of the area plastics.
affect the space's "feature of 3. Creation of texture unity on the plant and ground
naturalness" (Figure 6) surface
4. Circular and curved forms
5. Naturalness increases as the human-made elements
decrease (Zube et al., 1983)
1. The ground surfaces; changeable and rough textures
disrupt the depth continuity of surfaces and decrease the
preference level of spaces. Therefore, homogeneous and
soft textures were used on ground surfaces because this
Spatial factors that positively gives a sense of mystery to spaces and increases the
affect the space's "feature of preference level as it provides the observer with the
mystery" (Figure 7) opportunity of discovering and moving (Hartig, 1993).
2. Obtaining a mystery in an environment is strengthened
by the features such as curved roads, partial closeness
created by the leaves, linear perspective and width (Kent,
1993; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989).
1. The covering between the surfaces strengthens the
feature of depth in the space when it is performed by
making use of textural gradation of the surfaces (Gibson,
1986; Ulrich, 1983).
Spatial factors that positively 2. Plants and topography cover each other without
affect the space's "feature of impairing the perception of their forms,
depth" (Figure 8) 3. Ensuring the visibility of the background using light-
textured plants, and
4. The use of dark and hard-textured plants in the
foreground and the use of light-colored and light-textured
plants in the background strengthen the depth feature.

112
 Figure 6. Schematic representation of naturalness of space

Figure 7. Schematic representation of mysteriousness of space

Figure 8. Schematic representation of depth of space

113
 CONCLUSION
Urban green areas provide numerous benefits for those living in the city; they clear
the air as the city's lungs, and they mean water and soil for the natural areas in the city
(Gupta et al., 2012). They are the areas where the community sense of being is
developed by establishing a connection between the different parts of the city
(Thompson, 2002), where people ensure the social integration (Dwyer et al., 1991;
Kamierczak, 2013), and where the opportunities for mental healing, knowledge
acquisition, physical exercise, and comfort are provided (Kaplan & Kaplan 1982). In
other words, they are important as the social focal points where social needs are met
such as the fact that people from different cultures and socioeconomic classes come
together, become acquainted with each other and share the life, and as the places where
those living in the city merge with nature.
In order to increase the quality of life for the people living and working under
stress in cities, urban green areas are needed. Urban green areas are significant for daily
lives of everyone including old people, children, workers and unemployed people living
in the city because these people make use of these places and give meaning to them in
different times and for different purposes. Urban green areas sometimes become the
places where we come together with our friends, sometimes become playgrounds in
which children can run and play, and sometimes become a scene where we can look
from our house or office. However, they certainly have a meaning and function for us.
Whereas, these urban green areas which become more important day by day up to now,
are the places that are essential for us especially in our country. In order to bring nature
and natural places that are ignored because of Industrial Revolution back to the city,
models related to design approaches of open urban spaces should be produced by the
planners and designers. Otherwise, urban spaces that are not designed well will turn into
the places which citizens do not use, thus causing economical loss and communication
and social interaction break down as they cannot meet the needs of people.
Therefore, within the scope of this study, some design proposals that are intended
to be a guide for the designers of urban green areas have been suggested. Thus, it has
been aimed to give clues of creating a preferable and livable urban space for the city-
dweller where they gain satisfaction experience. With the help of these clues, "the
feeling of integrating with nature" can be provided in urban green areas which are
replete with trees and flowers which cannot otherwise be felt among buildings.
REFERENCES
Aydemir, Ş.; Aydemir, S.E.; Beyazlı, D.Ş.; Ökten, N.; Öksüz, A.M.; Sancar, C.; Özyaba,
M.; Türk, Y.A. (2004). Kentsel Alanların Planlanması ve Tasarımı. 557s., Akademi
Kitabevi. Trabzon.
Barton, J. & Pretty, J. (2010). What is Best Dose of Nature and Green Exercise for
İmproving Mental Health? A multi–study analysis. 44:(10), 3947-3955.
Beer, A.R. (1990). Environmental Planning for Site Development. 319 pp., E & FN Spon.
London.
Bertram, C. & Rehdanz, K. (2015). The Role of Green Space for Human Well-Being.
Eclogical Economics. 120, 139-152.
Bonnes, M.; Passafaro, P.; Carrus, G. (2011). The Ambivalence of Attitudes Toward Urban
Green Areas: Between Proenvironmental Worldviews and Daily Residential Experience.
Environment and Behavior. 43:(2), 207–232.
Carrus, G.; Scopelliti, M.; Lafortezza, R.; Colangelo, G.; Ferrini, F.; Salbitano, F.; Agrimi,

114
 M.; Portoghesi, L.; Semenzato, P.; Sanesi, G. (2015). Go greener, feel better? The
positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-
urban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning. 134, 221-228.
De La Barrera, F., Reyes-Paecke, S., Banzhaf, E. (2016). Indicators for green spaces in
contrasting urban settings. Ecological Indicators, 62, 212–219
De La Fuente de Val, G., Atauri, J., De Lucio, J. (2006). Relationship between landscape
visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: a test study in Mediterranean- climate
landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 77, 393–407.
De Vries, S.; Verheij, R. A.; Groenewegen, P. P.; Spreeuwenberg, P. (2003). Natural
environments-healthy environments? Environmental and Planning. 35, 1717–1731.
Dunnet, N., Swanwick, C., Wooley, H., (2002). Improving Urban Parks, Play Areas and
Open Spaces. 217pp., University of Sheffield. Queen’s Printer. London.
Dwyer, J.; Schroeder, H.; Gobster, P. (1991). The significance of urban trees and forests:
toward a deeper understanding of values. Journal of Arboriculture. 17, 276-284.
Francis, M.; Cashdan, L.; Paxson, L. (1984). Community Open Spaces: Greening
Neighborhoods Through Community Action and Land Conservation. 250pp., Island
Press. California.
Gibson, J. J. (1986) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Cornell University,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London.
Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, A. & Öhrström, E. (2007). Noise and well-being in urban residential
environments: The potential role of perceived availability to nearby green areas.
Landscape and Urban Planning. 83:(2-3), 115-126.
Grahn, P. & Stigsdotter, A.U. (2003). Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forestry &
Urban Greening 2, 1-18.
Grahn, P. & Stigsdotter, A.U. (2010). The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of
urban green space and stress restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning. 94:(3-4), 264-
275.
Groening, G. & Bulmahn, J.W. (1989). Changes In The Philosophy of Garden Architecture
in The 20th Century and Their Impact Upon Social and Spatial Environment. Journal of
Garden History. 9:(2), 53-70.
Gupta , K.; Kumar, P.; Pathan, S.K.; Sharma, K.P. (2012). Urban Neighborhood Green
Index - A measure of green spaces in urban areas. Landscape and Urban Planning.
105:(3), 325–335.
Hagerhall, C.; Purcell, T.; Taylor, R. (2004). Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette
outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology.
24, 247–255.
Halprin, L. (1981). Sketchbooks of Lawrence Halprin. Sixth Edition. 180pp., Process
Architecture. Tokyo.
Hartig T. R. (1993). Nature Experience in Transactional Perspective. Landscape and Urban
Planning. 25, 17–36.
Hartig, T.; Evans, G. W.; Jamner, L. D.; Davis, D. S.; Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking
Restoration in Natural and Urban Field Settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology.
23, 109–123.
Herzog, T. R. & Bryce, A. G. (2007). Mystery and Preference in Within-Forest Settings.
Environment and Behavior. 39, 779-796.
Herzog, T. R. & Leverich, O. L. (2003). Searching for Legibility. Environment and
Behavior. 35, 459-477.
Herzog, T. R. (1989). A Cognitive Analysis of Preference for Urban Nature. Journal of
Environmental Psychology. 9:(1), 27–43.

115
Jason Byrne & Neil Sipe. (2010). Green and open space planning for urban consolidation -A
review of the literature and best practice. Urban Research Program publication series.
11, 1-72.
Jim, C.Y. & Chen, W.Y. (2009). Value of scenic views: Hedonic assessment of private
housing in Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning. 91, 226–234.
Jim, C.Y. & Wendy, C.Y. (2006). Impacts of urban environmental elements on residential
housing prices in Guangzhou. Landscape and Urban Planning. 78:(4), 422–434.
Kamierczak, A. (2013). The contribution of Local Parks to Neighbourhood Social Ties.
Landscape Urban Planning. 109, 31-44.
Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective.
First edition. 356pp., Cambridge University Press. New York.
Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and Environment: Functioning in An Uncertain
World. Sixth edition. 287pp., Preager.New York.
Kaplan, S.; Kaplan, R.; Wendt, J.S. (1972). Rated Preference and Complexity for Natural
and Urban Visual Material. Perception and Psychophysics. 12, 354–356.
Kaplan, S.; Kaplan, R.; Ryan, R. (1998). With People in Mind, Design and Managementof
Everyday Nature. First edition. 239pp., Island Press. Washington.
Kendle, Tony. & Forbes, S. (1997). Urban Nature Conservation: Landscape Management in
the Urban Countryside. First edition. 352 pp., E & FN Spon. London.
Kent, R. L. (1993). Determining Scenic Quality along High Ways: A Cognitive approach.
Landscape and Urban Planning. 25:(1), 29-45.
Larondelle, N.; Haase, D.; Kabisch, N. (2014). Mapping the diversity of regulating
ecosystem services in European cities. Global Environmental Change. 26, 119-129.
Lawton, J. (2007). The Urban Environment. Summary of the Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution’s report. Twenty-sixth report. 237pp., HMSO. London.
Lee, A.C.K., Maheswaran, R. (2011). The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of
the evidence. Journal of Public Health, 33:(2), 212-222.
Maas, J.; Verheij, R. A.; Groenewegen, P. P.; De Vries; S., Spreeuwenberg, P.
(2006).Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of
Epidemiology Community Health. 60, 587-592.
Mackay, G.J. & Neill, J.T. (2010). The Effect of “Green Exercise” on State Anxiety and
The Role of Exercise Duration, İntensity, and Greenness: a Quasi–Experimental Study.
Psychology Sport Exercise. 11, 238–245.
McCormack , G. R.; Rock, M.; Toohey, A. M.; Hignell, D. (2010). Characteristics of urban
parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research.
Health & Place. 16:(4), 712–726.
Nasar, J. L. & Cubukcu, E. (2011). Evaluative Appraisals of Environmental Mystery and
Surprise. Environment and Behavior. 43:(3), 387-414.
Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors.
Environment and Behavior. 26, 377-401.
Nasar, J.L. 1988. In: Nasar, J.L. (ed.), Environmental aesthetics; theory, research and
applications. Cambridge University Press. xxi-xxvii pp.
Nielsen, T.S. & Hansen, K.B., 2007. Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish
survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health and Place. 13, 839–850.
Niemelä, J. (2014). Ecology of urban green spaces: The way forward in answering major
research questions. Landscape and Urban Planning. 125, 298-303.
Nohl, W. (2001). Sustainable Landscape Use and Aesthetic Perception-Preliminary
Reflections On Future Landscape Aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning. 54, 223–
237.

116
Ode, A.; Fry, G.; Tveit, M.S.; Messager, P.; Miller, D. (2009). Indicators of perceived
naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management.
90, 375–383.
Orr, S.; Paskins, J.; Chaytor, S. (2014). Valuing Urban Green Space: Challenges and
Opportunities. 3pp., Ucl Public Policy. London.
Özgüner, H. (2003). İnsan - doğa ilişkilerinin gelişimi ve peyzaj tasarımında doğal stilin 20.
yüzyılda önem kazanmasının nedenleri. S.D.Ü. Orman Fakültesi Dergisi. 1, 43-54.
Özgüner, H. (2004). Doğal Peyzajın İnsanların Psikolojik ve Fiziksel Sağlığı Üzerine
Etkileri. S.D.Ü. Orman Fakültesi Dergisi. 2, 97-107.
Project for Public Spaces ( 2000). How to Turn a Place Around: A Handbook for Creating
Successful Public Places. 125pp., Project for Public Spaces Inc. New York.
Qin, J.; Zhou, X.; Sun, C.; Lian, Z. (2013) Influence of green spaces on environmental
satisfaction and physiological status of urban residents. Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening 12:(4), 490–497.
Schipperijn, J.; Ekholm, O.; Stigsdotter, A. U.; Toftager, M.; Bentsen, P.; Kamper-
Jorgensen, F.; Randrup, T. B. (2010). Health promoting outdoor environments-
Associations between green space, and health, health-related quality of life and stress
based on a Danish national representative survey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 95,
130-137.
Schipperijn, J.; Stigsdotter, A.U.; Randrup, T. B.; Troelsen, J. (2010). Influences on The
Use of Urban Green Space–A Case Study in Odense.– Denmark. Urban Forestry &
Urban Greening. 9, 25–32.
Schroeder, H. (1987). Dimensions of variation in urban park design: a psychophysical
analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 7, 123–141.
Sugiyama, T.; Francis, J.; Middleton, N. J.; Owen, N.; Giles-Corti, B. (2010). Associations
Between Recreational Walking and Attractiveness, Size, and Proximity of Neighborhood
Open Spaces. American Journal of Public Health. 100:( 9), 1752-1757.
Tajima, K. (2003). New Estimates of the Demand for Urban Green Space: Implications for
Valuing the Environmental Benefits of Boston's Big Dig Project. Journal of Urban
Affairs. 25:(5), 641–655.
Takano,T.; Nakamura, K.; Watanabe, M. (2002). Urban Residential Environments and
Senior Citizens’ Longevity in Mega–City Areas: The İmportance of Walk–Able Green
Space. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 56:(12), 913–916.
Thompson, C.W., (2002), Urban open spaces in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 60 (2), 59-72.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment. In I.
Altman, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.). Behavior and the natural environment. Chapter 6,
p.85–125. Plenum press. New York.
Ulrich, R. S.; Simons, R. F.; Losito, B. D.; Fiorito, E.; Miles, M. A.; Zelson, M. (1991).
Stress Recovery During Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments. Journal of
Environmental Psychology. 11, 201–230.
Ulrich, R.S. (2006). Evidence–Based Health–Care Architecture. Lancet. 368, 38–39.
Van den Berg, A. E. & Ter Heijne, M. (2005). Fear Versus Fascination: An Exploration of
Emotional Responses to Natural Threats. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25:(3),
261–272.
Van den Berg, A. E.; Maas, J.; Verheij, R. A.; Groenewegen, P. P. (2010). Green space as a
buffer between stressful life events and health. Social Science & Medicine. 70:(8), 1203-
1210.
Wan, C. & Shen, G. Q. (2015). Salient Attributes of Urban Green Spaces in High Density

117
 Cities: The Case of Hong Kong. Habitat International. 49, 92–99.
Wheater, C.P.; Potts, E.; Shaw, E.M.; Perkins, C.; Smith, H.; Casstles, H.; Cook, P.A.;
Bellis, M.A. (2007). Urban parks and public health: exploiting are source for healthy
minds and bodies. Manchester Metropolitan University. 133pp., Centre for Public Health
Liverpool John Moores University. Liverpool.
Woolley, H. (2003). Urban Open Spaces. 208pp., Spon Press. London.
Wright Wendel, H. E.; Zarger, R. K.; Mihelcic, J. R. (2012). Accessibility and Usability:
Green Space Preferences, Perceptions, and Barriers in a Rapidly Urbanizing City in
Latin America. Landscape and Urban Planning. 107, 272– 282.
Wright, H. E. (2011). An Examination of the Impacts of Urbanization on Green Space
Access and Water Resources: A Developed and Developing World Perspective. 305pp.
Doctor of Philosophy. Wendel University of South Florida. Florida.
Yılmaz, S. (2008). Hayvanat Bahçesi Sergi Alanlarındaki Genişlik Etkisinin Arttırılmasına
Yönelik Algısal Yanılsamalara Dayalı Bir Tasarım Yaklaşımı. 205pp., Doktora tezi.
Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Trabzon.
Yılmaz, S. (2009). The Changes in Functions and Meanings of Urban Open Areas. 4th
International Congress Livable Enviroments Architecture. July 9-11, 2009, Trabzon,
Türkiye., p.397-407.
Zube, E.H.; David, G. P.; Gary, W. E. (1983). A Lifespan Developmental Study of
Landscape Assesment. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 3:( 2), 115-128.

118

View publication stats