Analysis of plant material in roadside landscapes: The ...mine whether there were significant differences between the identified three routes based on the planting design benefits

28

Original ArticleDOI: 10.5152/forestist.2020.19027Forestist 2020, 70(1): 28-35

Cite this paper as: Tarakçı Eren, E., Düzenli, T., Alpak, E.M., 2020. Analysis of Plant Material in Roadside Landscapes: The Trabzon Case. Forestist 70(1): 28-35.

Corresponding author: Tuğba Düzenli e-mail: [email protected]

Received Date: 02.08.2019 Accepted Date: 05.10.2019

Analysis of plant material in roadside landscapes: The Trabzon caseYol peyzajlarında bitkisel materyalin incelenmesi: Trabzon örneği

Emine Tarakçı Eren , Tuğba Düzenli , Elif Merve Alpak

Department of Landscape Architecture, Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Forestry, Trabzon, Turkey

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to determine the species used in road planting in Trabzon, Turkey, and to reveal the opinion of the city population on this subject. The research method was designed in two stages. During the first stage, the three most important routes in the city of Trabzon were examined, and the plant species used in roadside spaces and traffic islands were determined. In the second stage, a survey was conducted with the users to reveal their opinions about roadside landscapes. A total of 109 plant taxa/76 genera in the first route, 83 plant taxa/64 genera in the second route, and 73 plant taxa/56 genera in the third route were identified. Consequently, a total of 118 plant taxa/81 genera were determined in all three areas. In the survey, a total of 18 questions were asked, and the degree of their implementation in these areas was investigated. In conclusion, the analysis of the required benefits for the three routes demonstrated that there were no significant differences between them. It can be said that the focus of the study was to deter-mine whether there were significant differences between the identified three routes based on the planting design benefits they offer.

Keywords: Planting design, roadside planting, plant taxa, Trabzon, Turkey

ÖZBu çalışmada amaç Trabzon kenti yol bitkilendirmesinde kullanılan türleri belirlemek ve bu konudaki kul-lanıcı görüşlerini ortaya çıkarmaktır. Bu çalışmanın araştırma yöntemi iki aşamalı kurgulanmıştır. Birinci kısımda Trabzon kentinde en önemli üç güzergah incelenerek, bu güzergahlardaki yol kenarı, orta refüj, adalar ve kavşaklarda kullanılan bitki türleri tespit edilmiş ve elde edilen veriler doğrultusunda baskın bitki türleri ortaya koyulmuştur. İkinci aşamada ise kullanıcıların yol peyzajları hakkındaki görüşlerini belirlemek için anket yapılarak anket sonuçları istatistik programı yardımıyla değerlendirilmiştir. 1. rotada 76 tür ve 109 bitki taksonu, 2. rotada 64 tür ve 83 bitki taksonu ve 3. rotada 56 tür 73 bitki taksonu tespit edildi. Sonuç olarak 3 alanda toplam, 81 tür ve 118 bitki taksonu belirlenmiştir. Ankette ise katılımcılara 18 soru sorularak (N=390) ve bu alanlardaki uygulamalarının derecesi araştırılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, Trabzon kentinde incelenen güzergâhlardaki bitkilendirme tasarımlarının sağlaması gereken faydaların üç güzergâh için değerlendiril-mesi sonucunda üç yol arasında anlamlı bir farklılık olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmanın vurgusunun, belirlenen üç rota arasındaki, dikim tasarım faydalarına dayanarak önemli farklılıklar olup olmadığını tespit etmek olduğu söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Bitkilendirme tasarımı, yol peyzajı, bitki taksonu, Trabzon, Türkiye

Content of this journal is licensedunder a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Licence.

INTRODUCTION

Certain urban design theorists identified roads as one of the most important components of ur-ban spaces (Dingcheng, 2006; Dunnett and Hitchmough, 2004; Li et al., 2007). In addition to pro-viding a means for pedestrian and vehicle traffic, roads also function as urban open green spaces. Currently, due to the increasing building mass in urban areas, the areas occupied by open green spaces have shrunk. Thus, thanks to planting in roadside and traffic islands, urban green spaces are connected. One of the most important functions of roadside planting for urban aesthetics is

29

the connection function (Coffin, 2007; Qiao-ling, 2002; Tarakci Eren and Acar, 2017; Tarakci Eren and Özbilen, 2017).

The main function of wide boulevards and the roads that deter-mine the direction of urban development and define the urban skeleton is to provide comfortable, reliable, and easy utilization by the pedestrians and vehicles. Especially in planned cities, the roads fulfill the task of connecting various urban occupancy forms (Söğüt, 2005; Tarakci Eren et al., 2018). Roadside plants play import-ant roles in achieving certain standards. Trees and other plants on the roads, which are used by the drivers only to pass through, are also effective in locating places due to the perception of their functions and size that underlines and guides the routes. For pe-destrians, the roads also serve as business, shopping, and recre-ational spaces (Jing and Zhicheng, 2009; Qiao-ling, 2002).

The tree-lined urban roads and squares and the other green elements that accompany the former constitute the open and green urban spaces (Tunay et al., 2008; Yılmaz and Aksoy, 2009). The open and green spaces that the working urban people could benefit during the day are limited. On the other hand, streets, boulevards, and traffic islands are the most important open and green spaces that urbanites could use or benefit from in daily life (Küçük and Gül, 2005).

Today, the most important reason for the failure of urban road-side planting is not being familiar with the requirements of

trees as living organisms to fulfill the functions expected from them in spaces where they were planted (Jing and Zhicheng, 2009). To fulfill the expected functions and objectives, plan-ning and design principles for these trees should be observed to minimize the disadvantages in the growth environment. The present study aimed to investigate the planting activities in the Trabzon city on three arteries with the most intense traf-fic based on urban roadside planting and the plant species used in these spaces. Furthermore, the study aimed to de-termine whether there were significant differences between these three routes based on the planting design benefits they offer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study investigated the main transportation arteries in the urban center of the Trabzon province in Turkey. In this con-text, (1) The Coast Road, (2) Trabzon–Akçaabat Highway, and (3) Yavuz Selim Boulevard were investigated. In the first stage, the study methods included on-site observations, analysis and photographing the plants, and a survey was conducted in the second stage. In the first stage, the identified routes were visit-ed; the plants in traffic islands, intersections, and roadside spac-es were examined; and the plant species were determined. In the second stage, a questionnaire that included 18 statements (Table 1) was developed and applied to 130 occupants in each route. There was a total of 390 occupants.

Tarakçı Eren et al. Plant material in roadsidesForestist 2020, 70(1): 28-35

The Benefits of Roadside Planting Code Description

Traffic safety f1 Signalization of the road

f2 Prevention of light reflections

f3 Separation of pedestrian and vehicle spaces

f4 Facilitation of pedestrian activities

Visual values f5 Removal of urban monotony by underlining main and auxiliary design elements using color, form, and texture and creation of space and balance

Improvement of the psychology of urban population f6 Providing contact between the urbanites and nature

f7 Reduction of stress

f8 Providing energy of life and happiness

f9 Creating a sense of safety in pedestrians

Regulation of urban climate f10 Shading and reduction of high temperatures

f11 Balancing the relative humidity

f12 Preventing the wind corridor effect

Reduction of environmental pollution f13 Screening visual pollution

f14 Removal of traffic-induced pollution (Pb, NOx, Cd, Ni, etc.)

f15 Reduction of air particles

Contribution to urban development f16 Providing an urban infrastructure

f17 Connectivity between urban spaces

f18 Continuity between green spaces in particular

Table 1. Benefits Expected From Roadside Planting (Aklıbaşında and Erdoğan, 2016; Söğüt, 2005; Tarakci Eren et al., 2018)

30

RESULTS

Analysis of Plant MaterialThe Coast Road is part of the Trabzon coastal development, lo-cated between the Kanuni Park (Turkish–Hungarian Friendship Park) and the Beşirli district in urban center. It is 9 km long with an average width of 250 m, and it runs parallel to the Samsun–Sarp highway. The Trabzon coastal development, which is a reclaimed land to improve the coastal urban occupation, was built in 2007. The road has three lanes in each direction. The northern section of the road is limited by the Black Sea and hik-ing and bike trails and green spaces, and the south is limited by green spaces, residences, and commercial buildings. A total of 109 plant taxa in 76 genera were identified (Figure 1).

The Trabzon–Akçaabat Highway is the oldest street in the city that provides both urban and intercity transportation. Only one section of this road was studied in the present study. This road has also been a reference for the physical development of the Trabzon city. The road connects the urban center of Trabzon and Akçaabat, and the distance between these settlements is 45 km. The line width varies between 4 m and 8 m, and there are two lanes on each direction. The highway runs in the east–west di-rection, and is surrounded by several functional spaces. A total of 83 plant taxa in 64 genera were identified (Figure 2).

The road runs parallel to the Black Sea in southern Trabzon, and it is located between the Beşirli neigborhood Efendi Street and the Değirmendere Liman neighborhood. The road is approxi-mately 7 km long, the lane width varies between 4 m and 6 m, and there are two lanes in each direction. The road is mainly

surrounded by building blocks. Seventy-three plant taxa in 56 genera were determined (Figure 3).

The roads analyzed in the study (Table 2) are important, both for the city of Trabzon, its residents, and intercity passengers. These roads also determine the direction of urban develop-ment and physical growth. Thus, the planting designs in these roads, which constitute the visible urban image, were analyzed

Tarakçı Eren et al. Plant material in roadsidesForestist 2020, 70(1): 28-35

Figure 1. Trabzon Coast Road

Figure 2. Trabzon–Akçaabat Highway

Figure 3. Yavuz Selim Boulevard

31

based on aesthetic and functional properties, the utilized plants were identified, and prominent species were deter-mined. Consequently, 118 plant taxa in 81 genera were found in all three areas. Twenty-nine species were in the angiosperm group, and 89 were in the gymnosperm group. Sixty-one taxa were identified in all three areas (prevalent), 25 were identified in two areas (moderate), and 32 were identified in only one area (rare).

Survey FindingsThe required benefits of the planting designs on the three routes for the city and city residents (Table 1) were convert-ed into statements in the questionnaire, 18 questions were posed to the survey participants (N=390), and the degree of their implementation in these areas was investigated. The arithmetic mean, scale mean score, and frequency analyses were conducted on the responses. The aim was to rank the implementation levels of the benefits of planting designs in these routes and to determine which route the occupants were more satisfied with. Eighteen statements about the ben-efits such as providing traffic safety, creating visual values, im-proving the psychology of urban residents, regulating urban climate, reducing environmental pollution, and contributing to urban development were given to the participants using a Likert-type scale. In the survey, a Likert-type scale was used, and the responses were assessed as positive (1, 2), neutral (3, 4), and negative (5).

It was found that the Cronbach Alpha coefficient that deter-mines the scale reliability was 0.906. This value was above the required level of 70% (Table 3).

After the assessments of the participants on each route, the mean item values were calculated, and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was applied to determine whether the mean item scores differed based on the route (Table 4).

The ANOVA table demonstrates that “Sig.” >0.01 for the state-ments f1, f2, f6, f7, f15, f17, and f18. In other words, there was no significant difference between the implemented benefits of planting design in the three routes for these statements. Be-cause Sig. ≤,001 for other statements, there was a significant dif-ference between occupant assessments for these three routes. F-values demonstrated that the highest differences were ob-served found in the f14 (F: 79,834) and f12 (F: 52,903) statements. Detailed analysis demonstrated that the statements “separation of pedestrian and vehicle spaces, providing an aesthetic value and safety for pedestrians” received the highest scores. Among the three routes, Trabzon–Akçaabat highway and Yavuz Selim Boulevard received the highest scores when compared to the Coast Road.

CONCLUSION

The most important study finding was the fact that a high num-ber of plant species used in roadside landscape designs is not a condition for correct planting design. Instead, the selection of right plant species at the right location is important. An analy-sis of the plant material around the Coast Road demonstrated that the highest number of plant taxa used in this are; howev-er, when the benefits of the planting design were assessed by the occupants, the Akçaabat–Trabzon highway and Yavuz Selim Boulevard received higher scores. However, the number of plant

Tarakçı Eren et al. Plant material in roadsidesForestist 2020, 70(1): 28-35

Prevalence of the Identified Plant Taxa in the Three Areas

Prevalent (3 routes) Berberis thunbergii atropurpurea, Campsis radicans, Cedrus deodora, Cedrus libani, Cercis siliquastrum,Cotoneaster frigidus “Cornubia,” Cupressus macrocarpa goldcrest, Cupressus sempervirens pyramidalis, Cupressoparis leylandii, Cupressoparis leylandii multiponpon, Eribotria japonica, Euonymus japonica, Eouymus japonia aureus, Euonymus japonicus “Aureo-variegutus,” Forsythia x intermedia, Hedera helix, Hibiscus syriacus, Hydrangea macrophylla, Jasminum fruticans, Koelreuteria paniculata, Laurus nobilis, Laurocerasus officinalis, Ligustrum japonicum, Ligustrum japonicum variegatum, Liquidambar orientalis, Morus alba pendula, Nerium oleander, Parthenocissus tricuspidata “vetchii,” Paulownia tomentosa, Philadelphus coranarius, Phoenix canariensis, Photina fraseri, Picea pungens glauca, Picea orientalis, Pinus pinea, Pinus pinaster, Pittosporum tobira, Pittosporum tobira “variegatum,” Platycladus orientalis, Prunus cerasifera atropurpurea, Pyracantha coccinea, Pyracantha coccinea “lalendei,” Rhododendron ponticum, Robinia pseudoacacia, Robinia pseudoacacia “Umbraculifera,” Rosa sp., Rosmarinus officinalis, Sequoia sempervirens, Sparteum junceum, Spirea x vanhouttei, Syringa vulgaris, Thujo occidentalis, Thujo plicata, Tilia platyphyllos, Trachycarpus fortuneii, Viburnum tinus, Vitis vinifera, Washingtonia filifera, Wisteria floribunda, Wisteria sinensis, Yucca filementosa

Moderate (2 routes) Abies nordmanniana, Acer buergerianum, Acer palmatum, Acer pseudoplatanus, Aesculus hipocastanum, Albizia julibrissin, Buxus semmpervirens, Catalpa bignonioides, Chamaecyparis pisifera, Cryptomeria japonica, Cryptomeria japonica var elagance, Cupressus arizonica glauca multiponpon, Fagus orientalis, Hedera helix “Eleganttissima,” Juniperus pfitzeriana, Juniperus chinensis, Lagerstroemia indica, Magnolia grandiflora, Magnolia soulengeana, Melia azaderach, Phus typhina, Pittosporum tobira, nana, Platanus orientalis, Rubus sp., Salix babylonica

Rare (1 route) Acacia cynophylla, Acer negundo, Acer platonoides, Alnus orientalis, Azalea japonica, Betula pendula, Camelia japonica, Chamaecyparis lawsoniana “Ellwoodii,” Chamaecyparis nootkatensis pendula, Citrus limon, Citrus reticulata, Citrus sinensis, Cotoneaster franchetti, Crataegus oxyacantha, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Fraxinus excelsior, Gingko biloba, Juniperus communis, Juniperus chinensis “Pfitzeriana Glauca,” Juniperus virginniana, Liquidambar stracyfolia, Malus floribunda, Olea europaea, Picea pungens, Prunus avium, Prunus serrulata kanzan, Punica granatum, Quercus pontica, Sequoiadendron giganteum, Taxus baccata, Viburnum opulus, Viburnum plicatum

Table 2. Prevalence of the Identified Plant Taxa in the Three Areas

32

taxa in these two routes was lower than the Coast Road.The above-mentioned finding was consistent with similar study findings. It was suggested to utilize the principles of series, rhythm, repetition, continuity, and similarity in plant species use in roadside landscapes. In other words, planting the same plant taxa to ensure continuity or repeating the same species at certain intervals would lead to aesthetically pleasant views and provide urban identity (Altınçekiç and Altınçekiç, 1999; Demir, 2004; Karaşah and Var, 2012; Söğüt, 2005; Van Der Ree et al. 2015).

Another study finding was that the use of a combined design instead of metal separators when separating the two directions on double-lane roads was considered to be aesthetically pleas-ant by the occupants, and they assessed these planting designs more positively. On the Coast Road, one of the three routes covered by the present study, the landscaping was conducted generally on the roadside. It was suggested that this was the reason why it got more negative reviews when compared to the other roads.

Urban roadside landscapes play the role in orientation, empha-sizing certain points, limitation of the driver’s interests, shading the halted traffic, pedestrian safety, preventing vertical and hor-izontal negative views, connecting structures and spaces on the roadside. As a result of the occupant assessments, it was deter-mined that the Trabzon–Akçaabat highway and Yavuz Selim Boulevard were more successful. This finding was probably due to high speed limits on the Coast Road and the lack of intersec-tions or traffic islands.

In a study conducted in 2014, Fathi and Masnavi argued that the visual value of tall plants was higher when compared to groundcovers and bushes. This was similar to our study find-ings. In another study, Sezen (2018) claimed that substantial roadside natural vegetation and its diverse color effects during spring and fall improved the visual quality of the landscape. The study argued that the transition between the colors and color diversity were among the important factors that affected the vi-sual quality of roadside landscape, and they claimed that these effects of colors were possible thanks to the diversity of plant cover and flowering period, seasonal changes such as fruit peri-od if available, the changes in color especially during spring and fall, the presence of water surfaces such as lakes, rivers, streams, brooks, and reservoirs and other natural and cultural elements. The most important finding of that study was the positive im-pact of natural and unchanged quality of the elements that form the roadside landscapes (Sezen, 2018).

In 2017, Yazıcı analyzed the urban roadside landscapes and ex-isting plant designs based on functional and aesthetic aspects in the Tokat province in Turkey and reported that roadside planting applications were elaborate based on plant design principles; however, there were problems in plant selection and planting techniques. The study advocated that plants should be considered as the main roadside elements in urban road plan-ning, the aesthetic and functional properties and ecological

Tarakçı Eren et al. Plant material in roadsidesForestist 2020, 70(1): 28-35

The Routes Scrutinized in the Study

Planting Design Benefits 1 2 3

f1 (mean) 2.61 2.33 2.63 F: 1.744

f1 (standard deviation) 1.198 1.116 1.257 Sig.:.157

f2 (mean) 2.62 2.76 2.56 F: 1.161

f2 (standard deviation) 1.190 .998 1.105 Sig.:.324

f3 (mean) 2.08 2.80 2.83 F: 15.025

f3 (standard deviation) .961 .943 1.158 Sig.:.000

f4 (mean) 3.28 2.84 3.33 F: 5.614

f4 (standard deviation) 1.170 1.118 1.119 Sig.:.001

f5 (mean) 2.01 3.19 3.02 F: 33.772

f5 (standard deviation) 0.902 1.139 1.023 Sig.:.000

f6 (mean) 3.02 2.61 2.66 F: 3.531

f6 (standard deviation) 1.049 1.198 1.121 Sig.:.015

f7 (mean) 2.38 2.62 2.72 F: 2.237

f7 (standard deviation) 1.022 1.190 1.075 Sig.:.083

f8 (mean) 2.45 1.92 2.67 F: 11.476

f8 (standard deviation) 1.057 .915 1.195 Sig.:.000

f9 (mean) 2.12 3.20 2.75 F: 25.203

f9 (standard deviation) .996 1.123 .884 Sig.:.000

f10 (mean) 2.19 1.92 2.67 F: 12.643

f10 (standard deviation) 1.057 .872 1.041 Sig.:.000

f11(mean) 2.22 2.95 2.03 F: 24.366

f11 (standard deviation) .996 .979 .770 Sig.:.000

f12(mean) 3.75 2.39 2.34 F: 52.923

f12 (standard deviation) 1.022 1.000 1.042 Sig.:.000

f13(mean) 2.92 2.30 2.12 F: 16.846

f13 (standard deviation) .945 .986 .949 Sig.:.000

f14 (mean) 2.31 1.93 3.76 F: 79.834

f14 (standard deviation) .963 .917 1.151 Sig.:.000

f15 (mean) 2.40 2.25 2.37 F: 2.901

f 15 (standard deviation) .894 1.037 1.046 Sig.:.035

f16 (mean) 2.72 2.61 2.10 F: 8.869

f16 (standard deviation) 1.078 1.254 .716 Sig.:.000

f17 (mean) 2.45 2.74 2.39 F: 3.339

f 17 (standard deviation) .890 1.131 .869 Sig.:.019

f18 (mean) 2.46 2.84 2.56 F: 3.127

f18 (standard deviation) .997 1.052 1.082 Sig.:.026

Table 3. Planting Design Benefits in Each Route Based on Occupant Statements

33

Tarakçı Eren et al. Plant material in roadsidesForestist 2020, 70(1): 28-35

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig

f1 Between groups 7.427 3 2.476 1.744 .157

Within groups 547.909 386 1.419

Total 555.336 389

f2 Between groups 4.222 3 1.407 1.161 .324

Within groups 464.196 383 1.212

Total 468.419 386

f3 Between groups 47.329 3 15.776 15.025 .000

Within groups 404.250 385 1.050

Total 451.578 388

f4 Between groups 21.740 3 7.247 5.614 .001

Within groups 495.670 384 1.291

Total 517.410 387

f5 Between groups 106.611 3 35.537 33.772 .000

Within groups 405.116 385 1.052

Total 511.728 388

f6 Between groups 13.390 3 4.463 3.531 .015

Within groups 487.954 386 1.264

Total 501.344 389

f7 Between groups 8.090 3 2.697 2.237 .083

Within groups 465.253 386 1.205

Total 473.344 389

f8 Between groups 38.785 3 12.928 11.476 .000

Within groups 434.859 386 1.127

Total 473.644 389

f9 Between groups 76.566 3 25.522 25.203 .000

Within groups 390.928 386 1.013

Total 418.359 389

f10 Between groups 62.032 3 12.477 12.643 .000

Within groups 380.928 386 .987

Total 418.359 389

f11 Between groups 62.032 3 20.677 24.366 .000

Within groups 327.568 386 .849

Total 389.600 389

f12 Between groups 165.536 3 55.179 52.903 .000

Within groups 402.608 386 1.043

Total 568.144 389

f13 Between groups 46.583 3 15.528 16.846 .000

Within groups 355.787 386 .922

Total 402.369 389

Table 4. Analysis of Variance Findings

34

demands of the plants should be considered, and indigenous species should be preferred (Yazıcı, 2017).

Bekçi et al. (2017) investigated the impact of roadside landscapes on urban skyline, and they determined that the plant design cri-terion of the order–sequence was the most preferred planting design criterion in roadside landscapes, and this criterion was generally used in the present roadside landscapes. They claimed that a successful roadside landscape would be achieved with an aesthetic and functional roadside landscape and a sustainable green area texture. In the selection of plant species, they em-phasized that the use of an adequate indigenous plant species would facilitate maintenance and reflect regional values.

Çorbacı and Var (2011) proposed various suggestions to inves-tigate the landscape features of the Bartın–Amasra road based on landscape planning and to solve the existing problems. In their study, the most important landscaping elements were identified as the sea and the rolling terrain. It was suggested to balance the visual complexity level on the roadside. The authors argued that this could be achieved by planting design. The mo-notonous sea landscape should be screened by planting in ad-equate areas, and this part should be exhibited in spaces where the land view is available. Interest should be improved by cre-ating contrasts in color in the environment by planting colorful, blooming trees, shrubs, and bushes with autumn foliage. Thus, it was suggested that indigenous plant species that are suitable for the region should be used, and if they are insufficient, exotic species could be used.

The use of species indigenous to the region was determined as the most important and similar finding among these studies

that examined the roadside landscapes from different perspec-tives, and the plants were used mainly for aesthetic purposes.

Ethics Committee Approval: N/A

Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed.

Author Contributions: Concept – E.T.E., T.D.; Design - E.T.E., T.D.; Super-vision - E.M.A.; Resource - E.T.E., E.M.A.; Materials - E.T.E.; Data Collection and/or Processing - E.T.E., T.D.; Analysis and/or Interpretation - E.T.E., E.M.A.; Literature Search - T.D.; Writing -E.T.E.; Critical Reviews - T.D.

Conflict of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Financial Disclosure: The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.

REFERENCES

• Aklıbaşına M., Erdoğan, A., 2016. Nevşehir Kentiçi Yol Bitkilendirm-elerinin Estetik fonksiyonel Yönden Değerlendirilmesi ve Kullanılan Bitki Türlerinin Tespiti. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, ISSN: 1302-0943 EISSN: 1308-5875.

• Altınçekiç, Ç.S., Altınçekiç, H., 1999. Karayolları Peyzaj Düzenleme Çalışmalarında Bitkilendirme Esasları. Forestist B(49): 100-104.

• Bekci, B., Dinçer, D., Üçok, A.G.M., 2017. Karayolu Peyzajının Kent Silueti Üzerindeki Etkisi; Rize Örneği The Effect Of Hıghway Land-scapıng On The Urban Skylıne: A Case Study Of Rıze. In Internatıon-al West Asia Congress Of Tourısm (Iwact’17) The Book Of Full-Text (P. 40).

• Coffin, A.W., 2007. From roadkill to road ecology: a review of the ecological effects of roads. Journal of Transport Geography 15(5): 396-406. [CrossRef]

• Çorbacı, Ö.L., Var, M., 2011. Bartın-Amasra Karayolunun Peyzaj Özelliklerinin Peyzaj Planlama Açısından İrdelenmesi Ve Sorunların

Tarakçı Eren et al. Plant material in roadsidesForestist 2020, 70(1): 28-35

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig

f14 Between groups 246.711 3 82.237 79.834 .000

Within groups 397.620 386 1.030

Total 644.331 389

f15 Between groups 8.612 3 2.871 2.901 .035

Within groups 381.963 386 .990

Total 390.574 389

f16 Between groups 28.846 3 9.615 8.869 .000

Within groups 418.490 386 1.084

Total 447.336 389

f17 Between groups 9.441 3 3.147 3.339 .019

Within groups 363.851 386 .943

Total 373.292 389

f18 Between groups 10.225 3 3.408 3.127 .026

Within groups 419.703 385 1.090

Total 429.928 388

Table 4. Analysis of Variance Findings (continued)

35

Giderilmesine Çeşitli Öneriler. Journal of Bartin Faculty Of Forestry 13(20): 23-37.

• Demir, M., 2004. İstanbul’da Yol Ağaçlandırmasının Peyzaj Teknikleri Açısından İrdelenmesi ve Ağaç Bilgi Sistemi Oluşturması. Agabis; Şişli-Cumhuriyet Caddesi Örneği, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.

• Dingcheng, L.J.Z., 2006. Natural and Ecological Road Planting De-sign Approach Landscape Design for Shenzhen Binhai Boulevard [J]. Landscape Architecture 1.

• Dunnett, N., Hitchmough, J., 2004. The dynamic landscape: design, ecology and management of naturalistic urban planting. Taylor & Francis. [CrossRef]

• Jing, W., Zhicheng, Q. 2009. Research on Planning and Design of Urban Residential Landscape Planting Road-Yuanmou Yunnan Feature Landscape Planning Design [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin 18.

• Karaşah, B., Var, M., 2012. Trabzon ve Bazı İlçelerinde Kent Dokusun-daki Bitkilendirme Tasarımlarının Ölçü-Form Açısından İrdelenmesi. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi 14: 1-11.

• Küçük, V., Gül, A., 2005. Isparta kentiçi yol ağaçlandirmalari üzerine bir araştirma. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi 9(3): 111-118.

• Li, S.Y., Huang, J.X., Hu, Y.Y., Zhuge, Z.X. 2007. Analysis of Ecologic Landscape-design Plan of City Environment [J]. Northern Horticul-ture 5.

• Qiao-ling, Q.I.U., 2002. Several Issues Concerning on Urban Arterial Roads Planting [J]. Journal of Chinese Landscape Architecture 3.

• Sezen, I., 2018. Karayolu Peyzajı ve Manzara Yolları. Mimarlık Bilimleri ve Uygulamaları Dergisi (MBUD) 3(1): 54-65. [CrossRef]

• Söğüt, Z., 2005. Urban greenways and Adana Case. Akdeniz Üniver-sity Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture 18(1): 113-124.

• Tarakci Eren, E., Acar, C., 2017. Bina-bahçe-yol ilişkisinde mekân-sal bileşenlerin analizi: Trabzon, Yavuz Selim Bulvarı örneği, Tra-bzon. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi 67(2): 275-289. [CrossRef]

• Tarakci Eren, E., Düzenli, T., Alpak, E.M., 2018. The Plant Species Used As Edge Elements And Their Usage Types: The Case Of KTU Cam-pus. Kastamonu Unıversity Journal of Forestry Faculty 18(2): 108-120. [CrossRef]

• Tarakci Eren, E., Özbilen, A., 2017. Kentsel açık yeşil alanların kentsel tasarım teorilerine göre incelenmesi: Trabzon kent merkezi örneği. Asos Journal The Journal of Academic Social Science 5(43): 438-460. [CrossRef]

• Tarakci Eren, E., Düzenli, T., Akyol, D., 2018. Kent Merkezinde Cad-delerin Yayalaştırılması: Trabzon Kahramanmaraş Caddesi Örneği. Megaron, 13(3).

• Tunay, M., Yılmaz, B., Ateşoğlu, A., 2008. Bartın-Amasra Karayolu güzergâhının doğal peyzaj özellikleri üzerindeki etkilerinin saptan-ması. Ekoloji 17(66): 23-30. [CrossRef]

• Van Der Ree, R., Smith, D.J., Grilo, C., 2015. Handbook of road ecolo-gy. John Wiley & Sons. [CrossRef]

• Yazici, K., 2017. Kentiçi Yol Bitkilendirmelerinin Fonksiyonel-Estetik Açıdan Değerlendirilmesi Ve Mevcut Bitkisel Tasarımların İncelen-mesi: Tokat Örneği. Ziraat Mühendisliği (364): 30-39.

• Yılmaz, F., Aksoy Y., 2009. Şehir içi yol bitkilendirmelerinin İstanbul ili Beyoğlu İlçesi Cumhuriyet, Halaskargazi ve Büyükdere caddesi örneğinde İrdelenmesi. Journal of Yasar University 4(16): 2699-2728.

Tarakçı Eren et al. Plant material in roadsidesForestist 2020, 70(1): 28-35