Advertisement

Systems approach in landscape design: a studio work

  • Elif Merve Alpak
  • Doruk Görkem ÖzkanEmail author
  • Tuğba Düzenli
Article

Abstract

Landscape architects design the environment, which is an organic part, an outdoor extension of the building, according to the various functions of buildings. One of the most important objectives in design is to create a strong organization which forms a whole by combining different parts. While creating this organization, it is essential to establish relationships, make the designed elements related and obtain a unique design product. This relationship can be established only with the systems approach. It is a difficult process. For this reason, it was aimed in this study to teach Landscape Architecture students how to achieve designs meeting both creative and user needs. Thus, students will learn how to create successful open spaces with the high level of use which is one of the most important problems nowadays. In this respect, this article has two purposes. The first purpose is to create a study diagram by suggesting the systems approach theoretically. Student works will be evaluated according to this study diagram. The second purpose is to investigate the contribution of the course conducted with the systems approach to the design education. In this study, the systems approach was explained to the students of the Department of Landscape Architecture at Karadeniz Technical University and they were made to design the residence and its immediate surroundings within the scope of the 3rd semester. Then, the effect of the systems approach on the creative and applicable designs of the students was determined with the survey study conducted. The results of this study reveal the importance of the systems approach for both design education and urban designers.

Keywords

Systems approach Design education Landscape design Need Activity Space 

References

  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1960). Systems, organizations and interdisciplinary research. Society for General Systems Research, 5, 1–8.Google Scholar
  2. Ackoff, R. L. (2010). Systems thinking for curious managers. Axminster: Triarchy Press.Google Scholar
  3. Akkul, A. (1998). Mekandaki fiziksel koşulların insanın psikolojik yapısına olan etkileri. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Mimar Sinan Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.Google Scholar
  4. Aksoy, E. (1975). Mimarlıkta tasarım, İletim ve Denetim. İstanbul: KTÜ Yayınları.Google Scholar
  5. Alangoya, K. A. (2015). Tasarımcı düşünce geleneğinin maceracı yapısı ve kentsel tasarım eğitimine katkısı üzerine deneysel bir kentsel tasarım stüdyosu: İz üstünde Taksim Meydanı. METU JFA, 32(1), 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the syntesis of form. Oxford: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Aristotle. (1943). Politics (p. 1943). New York: Çeviren: Jowett, Modern Library.Google Scholar
  9. Asimow, A. (1962). Introductin to design. New York: Prentie-Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Başaran, İ. E., & Çınkır, Ş. (2012). Türk eğitim sistemi ve okul yönetimi. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  11. Bell, S. 2004. Elements of visual design in the landscape. Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  12. Bertalanffy, L. V. (1951). General system theory: A new approach to unity of science. Human Biology, 23(4), 302–312.Google Scholar
  13. Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General system theory. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
  14. Best, G. (1969). Method and intention in architectural design, design methods in architecture. London: Lund Humphries.Google Scholar
  15. Boulding, K. E. (2004). General systems theory, the skeleton of science, E:CO. Special Double Issue, 6(1–2), 127–139.Google Scholar
  16. Carlson, A. (2001). Aesthetic preferences for sustainable landscapes: Seeing and knowing. In: S. R. J. Sheppard, H. W. Harshaw (Eds.), Forests and landscapesLinking ecology, sustainability and Aesthetics. IUFRO research series (pp. 31–41). Wallingford: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Cherry, C. (1967). Kommunikations for schung. In S. Fisher (Ed.), On human communication. Hamburg: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Çınar, H. S., & Erdönmez, M. Ö. (2008). Peyzaj tasarımında biçim geometrisine estetik bir yaklaşım. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 58, 23–40.Google Scholar
  20. Cohen, M. (1931). Reason and nature: And essay on the meaning of scientific method. Glancoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  21. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Ode, A., & Velarde, M. D. (2009). The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators, 9, 933–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graves, M. E. (1951). The art of color and design. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  24. Gür, Ş. Ö. (1996). Mekan Örgütlenmesi. Trabzon: Gür Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  25. Gürer, G., & Gürer, L. (2004). Temel Tasarım. İstanbul: Birsen Yayıncılık/Mimarlık Dizisi.Google Scholar
  26. Hodgetts, R. M. (1991). Management (Vol. 22). San Diego: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  27. Jackle, J. A. (1987). The visual elements of landscape design. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kepes, G. (1944). Language of vision. Chicago: P. Theobald.Google Scholar
  30. Klir, G. J. (1969). An approach to general systems theory. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  31. Koçel, T. (1984). Yönetimde sistem yaklaşımı. Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Fakültesi Yayınları.Google Scholar
  32. Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of gestalt psychology. London: Lund Humphries. Chapter 1 reproduced in www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/koffka.htm. Retrieved: July 2005.
  33. Kohler, W. (1924). Die physischengestalten in ruhe und im stationaren zusfand. Erlangen.Google Scholar
  34. Kohler, W. (1927). Zum problem der regulation. Roux’s Archives. 112, 32–33.Google Scholar
  35. Kowaltowski, C. C. K. D., Bianchi, G., & de Paiva, V. T. (2010). Methods that may stimulate creativity and their use in architectural design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20, 453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lenzholzer, S., Koh, J., & Duchhart, I. (2013). Research through designing’ in landscape architecture. Landscape and Urban Planning, 113, 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lotka, A. J. (1925). Elements of physical biologv. New York: Dover. (1956).Google Scholar
  38. Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundation of theory of sign (Vol. 2). Chicago: Int. Encylopedn of Unified Science 1.Google Scholar
  39. Moughtin, C. (1999). Urban design: Street and square (Vol. 2). Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  40. Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  41. Öke, A., Bayazıt, N., İnceoğlu, M., & Tapan, M. (1978). Mimari tasarlama ders notları. İstanbul: İTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi.Google Scholar
  42. Özbilen, A. (1982). Meryemana kırsal yöresinde yapay doğal imgelem öğelerinin araştırılması. Trabzon: Doktora Tezi K.T.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.Google Scholar
  43. Özkan, D. G., Alpak, E. M., & Düzenli, T. (2016). Tasarım eğitiminde yaratıcılığın geliştirilmesi: Peyzaj mimarlığı çevre tasarımı stüdyo çalışması. IJASOS-International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences, 4, 136–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Özkan, D. G., Alpak, E. M., & Var, M. (2017). Design and construction process in campus open spaces: A case study of Karadeniz Technical University. Urban Design International. doi: 10.1057/s41289-017-0041-0.Google Scholar
  45. Pile, J. (1997). A history of interior designer. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Redfield, R. (Ed.). (1942). Levels of integration in biological and social systems (introduction). Lancaster, PA: Jacques Catell Press.Google Scholar
  47. Sarıoğlu Erdoğdu, G. P. (2016). Basic design education: A course outline proposal. Planlama Dergisi, 26(1), 7–19.Google Scholar
  48. Singer, M. (1946). The nervous system and regeneration of the forelimb of adult Triturus V The influence of number of nevre fibers, including a quantitative study of limb innervation. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological Genetics and Physiology, 2001(101), 299–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sommerhoff, G. (1950). Analytic biology. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Stewart, J. (2007). Professional landscaper: A complete course. Delhi, IND: Global Media.Google Scholar
  51. Stradal, D. (1968). Theorie de l’Infotmation. Oslo: CIB Conference.Google Scholar
  52. Tecim, V. (2004). Sistem yaklasimi ve soft sistem düşüncesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 75–100.Google Scholar
  53. Tuan, Y. (1974). Topophilia. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  54. Ünlü, F. (1998). İç mekan oluşum ve biçimlenişinde mekan-insan davranışı etkileşimine bir yaklaşım.Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.Google Scholar
  55. Wong, W. (1993). Principles of form and design. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  56. Yilmaz, S., Mumcu, S., Düzenli, T., & Özbilen, A. (2016). Analyzing the unity concept in design on student works: A case study of architectural design course. Inonu University Journal of Art and Design, 6, 1–12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elif Merve Alpak
    • 1
  • Doruk Görkem Özkan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tuğba Düzenli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Landscape Planning and DesignKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey

Personalised recommendations