Urban landscape characters in terms of design components: Antalya, Muratpaşa case.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2026.28.07Keywords:
urban landscape, landscape character, design components, Muratpaşa, AntalyaAbstract
Urban landscapes can be defined as an area with high building and population density and functions where a very significant part of the world’s population lives. The character of urban landscapes is the combination of the features that differentiate a city both from its surroundings and others. Therefore, the concept of urban landscapes is critical to appreciation of their characters in the era of globalisation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationships between urban landscape characters and design components in Muratpaşa quarter of Antalya. We followed a holistic approach for the methodology, where urban land use patterns were classified and divided into subclasses and mapped, landscape characters and design components for each class were analysed simultaneously using Antalya Urban Development Plan, topographic maps, Google Earth Images, GIS data and site analysis. Study results showed that either ordinary or remarkable, urban landscape characters inextricably correspond design components. Although the city is concealed by buildings, the natural and biophysical features revealed “distinct” attributes in urban landscape characters. Muratpaşa has had inherent geographical properties such as Falez sea cliffs, Düden waterfall, Konyaaltı and Lara beaches, Lara sand dunes that simply emerge as remarkable landscape characters. According to spatial interpretation of key characteristics, coastline with escalating landforms has happened a genuine linear design component. Landscape character zone along the coastline with significant geographical qualities that unique to Muratpaşa, reflects unique sense of the region. This also corresponds to the fact that the city by the sea is more than urban proliferation but exceptional entity of natural evolution of earth’s surfaces that conveys unique characters. Addressing the discourse which characters urban land uses bring, how those characters reconcile design components and effect the urban environment and how their spatial interpretation is significant is helpful to recognise urban design priorities and to protect distinct geographical and regional characteristics.
References
1. Akdoğu, G. Kentleşme Sürecinde Kırsal Yerleşmelerde Yaşanan Peyzaj Değişimlerinin İrdelenmesi. Master’s thesis. İstanbul University, 2014. 150 p.
2. Antrop, M. The concept of traditional landscapes as a base for landscape evaluation and planning. The example of Flanders Region. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1997, No. 38, p. 105-117.
3. Atik, M., Ortaçeşme, V. Peyzaj karakter analizi yöntemi ile Antalya Side Bölgesi kültürel peyzajlarinin karakter analizi. Tübitak, 2010. 102 p.
4. Atik, M., Işıklı, R.C., Ortaçeşme, V., Yıldırım, E. Definition of landscape character areas and types in Side Region, Antalya-Turkey with regard to land use planning. Land Use Policy, 2015, No. 44, p. 90-100.
5. Atik, M., Işıklı, R.C., Ortaçeşme, V. Clusters of landscape characters as a way of communication in characterisation: A Study from Side, Turkey. Journal of Environmental Management, 2016, No. 182, p. 385-396.
6. Bell, S. Elements of visual design in the landscape. Routledge, 2nd edition, 2004, 224 p.
7. Council of Europe. The European Landscape Convention (ETS no.176). European Council. 2000. 8 p.
8. Gavrilidis, A. A., Ciocănea, C. M., Niță, M. R., Onose, D. A., Năstase, I. J. Urban Landscape Quality Index – planning tool for evaluating urban landscapes and improving the quality of life. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 2016, No. 32, p. 155-167.
9. Güçlü, M. XX.Yüzyılın ilk yarısında Antalya. Atılım Matbaacılık Gazetecilik ve Yayıncılık, 1997. 157 p.
10. Güremen, L. Kent kimliği ve estetiği yönüyle kentsel donatı elemanlarının Amasya kenti özelinde araştırılması. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 2011, No. 6(2), p. 254-291.
11. Heritage Council. Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) in Ireland: Baseline audit and evaluation. Final Report to The Heritage Council, prepared by Julie Martin Associates in Association with Alison Farmer Associates, 2006. 66 p.
12. Hough, M. Out of place: Restoring identity to the regional landscape. Yale University Press, 1990. 230 p.
13. Karataş, A., Kılıç, S. Sustainable urban development and green areas. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences, 2017, No. 26 (2), p. 53–78.
14. Kim, K., Pauleit, S. Landscape character, biodiversity and land use planning: The case of Kwangju City Region, South Korea. Land Use Policy, 2007, No. 24 (1), p. 264-274.
15. Mitchell, N., Rössler, M., Tricaud, M. P. World heritage cultural landscapes, a handbook for conservation and management. World Heritage Centre UNESCO, 2009. 131 p.
16. Rössler, M. World heritage cultural landscapes: A UNESCO flagship programme 1992-2006. Landscape Research, 2006, No. 31 (4), p. 333-353.
17. Spirn, A.W. The Language of landscape. Yale University Press, 1998. 326 p.
18. Swaffield, S. Landscape as a way of knowing the world. S. Harvey & K. Fieldhouse (Eds). In: The cultured landscape: Designing the environment in the 21st century. Routledge, 2005, p. 3-24.
19. Swanwick, C. Landscape character assessment guidance for England and Scotland. The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002. 84 p.
20. Taylor, K. Landscape and meaning, Context for a global discourse on cultural landscapes values. Ken Taylor and Jane Lennon (Eds), in: Managing Cultural Landscapes. Routledge, 2012, p. 21-44.
21. TDK. Türk Dil Kurumu Türkçe Sözlük. Türk Dil Kurumu 4. Akşam Sanat Okulu Matbaası, 2005, 2243 p.
22. Tudor, C. An Approach to landscape character assessment. Natural England, 2014. 56 p.
23. Turner, S. C. Devon historic landscape characterisation. Devon County Council Historic Environment Service & English Heritage, 2005. 68 p.
24. UNESCO. Cultural landscapes history and terminology [online 20.09.2017]. https://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/#1
25. Wang, R. On aesthetics principle of urban landscape design. International Conference on Economics, Social Science, Arts, Education and Management Engineering (ESSAEME 2015), 2015, p. 69-73.
26. Wangn, M., Bochun Y. B. Landscape characteristic aesthetic structure: Construction of urban landscape characteristic time-spatial pattern based on aesthetic subjects. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 2012, No. 1(3), p. 305–315.
27. Wascher, D. M. European landscape character areas. Typologies, cartography and indicators for the assessment of sustainable landscapes. Final Project Report as deliverable from the EU’s Accompanying Measure project European Landscape Character Assessment Initiative (ELCAI), 2005. 150 p.
28. Whitehand, J. Understanding and shaping urban character. Urban Morphology Journal of the International Seminar on Urban Form, 2005, No. 9 (2).
29. Zaleskienė, E., Vileniškė, I. G. Landscape aesthetics theories in modeling the image of the rurban landscape. Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering, 2014, No. 2 (7), p.10-21.
30. Zhang, N., Zheng, X., Wang, X. Assessment of aesthetic quality of urban landscapes by integrating objective and subjective factors: a case study for riparian landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution (9), 735905. 2022.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Landscape Architecture and Art
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
