BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Botanik Bahçelerinde Ziyaretçi Tercihlerinin Belirlenmesi ‘Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi Örneği’

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1, 0 - 0, 02.06.2016

Banu Karaşah Mustafa Var

https://doi.org/10.17475/kujff.03116

Öz

Kentsel yeşil alanların önemli bir parçası olan botanik bahçeleri, nesli tükenme tehlikesi altındaki bitkilerin koruma altına alındığı, ziyaretçilerini doğrudan ve dolaylı eğiten ve birçok rekreatif imkan sunan önemli merkezlerdir. Çalışma alanı olarak ziyaretçilerine doğal hayatla buluşma fırsatı sunan Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik bahçesi seçilmiştir. Çalışmada botanik bahçesi ziyaretçilerinin mevsimsel-mekânsal tercihlerini ve botanik bahçesini kullanım amaçlarını belirlemek amacıyla anket çalışması, peyzaj tercihlerini belirlemek amacıyla da görsel anket çalışması yapılmıştır. Anket çalışması sonbahar ve ilkbahar mevsimlerinde toplam 311 kişiyle ve görsel anket çalışması toplam 150 kişiyle alanda yüz yüze yürütülmüştür. Ek olarak, nesnel bir değerlendirme ortaya koymak amacıyla da ziyaretçiler tarafından tercih edilen fotoğrafların fraktal analizi yapılmıştır.  Ziyaretçilerin Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesini daha çok kalabalık şehirden uzaklaşmak ve stresten arınmak (%40.5), dışarıda güzel bir gün geçirmek (%14.1) gibi rekreasyonel nedenlerle ziyaret ettiği, mekânsal tercihleri ve peyzaj tercihlerinin de mevsimsel olarak değiştiği sonucu elde edilmiştir. Fraktal analiz sonuçlarında, ziyaretçiler tarafından en çok tercih edilen görüntülerin fraktal boyut değerlerinin yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Ziyaretçi tercihleri ve motivasyonlarının belirlenmesi, botanik bahçesi yöneticileri için mevcut ve geleceğe yönelik gelişim alanlarının planlanması ve tasarımında önem arz etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Botanik Bahçesi, Kullanıcı tercihleri, Peyzaj terciheri,  Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi.

Kaynakça

  • Akbar, K.F., Hale, W.H.G., Headley, A.D. 2003. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in Northern England. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63, 139–144.
  • Altınay, B., Anşin, R., Bakırcı, A., Bayındır, D., Bilgin, M., Çıngay, B., Denizyaran, A., Disperati, E.E., Gül, S., Gülenç, F., Güner, A., Kanoğlu, S.S., Kılıç, C.S., Kuşoğlu, B., Öcal, Ş., Öztekin, M., Yüzbaşıoğlu, S. 2011. Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi gezi rehberi. Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi Yayınları, ISBN: 978-605-60425-5-3.
  • Arnberger, A., Eder, R. 2015. Are urban visitors’ general preferences for green-spaces similar to their preferences when seeking stress relief? Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14 (4), 872-882.
  • Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Hughes, K. 2008. Environmental awareness, interests and motives of botanic gardens visitors: Implications for interpretive practice. Tourism Mangement, 29, 439-444.
  • Barrosa, F.L., Pinto-Correia, T., Ramos, I.L., Surova, D., Menezes, H. 2012. Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies: photo-based questionnaires in the mediterranean context, Landscape and Urban Planning, 104, 329-342.
  • Bell, S. (2004). Elements of visual design in the landscape. 2nd edn., Spon Press, London and New York.
  • Bennet, E.S., Swasey, J.E. 1996. Perceived stress reduction in urban public gardens. HortTechnology, 6 (2), 125-128.
  • Chen, B., Adimo, O.A., Bao, Z. 2009. Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban gren space from the users’ perspective: The case of Hangzhou Flower Garden, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 93, 76-82.
  • Clay, G.R., Daniel, T.C. 2000. Scenic landscape assessment: The effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49 (1-2), 1-13.
  • Connell, J. 2004. The of human pleasures: The characteristics and motivations of garden visitors in Great Britain. Tourism Management, 25, 229-247.
  • Connell, J., Meyer, D. 2004. Modelling the visitor experience in the gardens of Great Britain, Current Issues in Tourism, 7 (3), 183-216.
  • Crilley, G., Hills, J., Cairncross, G., Moskwa, E. 2010. Identifying visitor service quality in Australian regional botanic gardens. Annals of Leisure Research, 13 (3), 476-496.
  • Çakçı, I., Çelem, H. 2009. Kent parklarında görsel peyzaj algısının değerlendirilmesi. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 15 (1), 88-95.
  • Ediz, Ö., Çağdaş, G. 2005. Mimari tasarımda fraktal kurguya dayalı üretken bir yaklaşım. İTÜ Dergisi/a Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 4(1), 71-83.
  • Escobedo, F. J., Kroeger, T., Wagner, J. E. 2011. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution,159 (8), 2078–2087.
  • Frankhauser, P. 1998a. The fractal approach. A new tool for the spatial analysis of urban agglomerations. Population: An English Selection, 10 (1), 205-240.
  • Frankhauser, P. 1998b. Fractal geometry of urban patterns and their morphogenesis. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2 (2), 127-145.
  • Fuller, R.A., Irvine, K.N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P.H., Gaston, K. J. 2007.Psychological benefits of green space increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3, 390–394.
  • Groenewegen, P., van den Berg, A., de Vries, S., Verheij, R. 2006. Vitamin G: Effects of green space on health, well-being, and social safety. BMC Public Health, 6(1),149.
  • He, H., Chen, J. 2011. Preliminary research on the visiting motivation and satisfaction of visitors to Chinese botanical gardens. Biodiversity Science, 19, 589–596.
  • He, H., Chen, J. 2012. Educational and enjoyment benefits of visitor education centers at botanical gardens. Biological Conservation, 149, 103–112.
  • Kalıpsız, A. 1981. İstatistik Yöntemler. İÜ Orman Fakültesi, Yayın No: 2837, OF Yayın No:294, İstanbul.
  • James, P., Tzoulas, K., Adams, M.D., Barber, A., Box, J., Breuste, J., Elmqvist, T., Frith, M., Gordon, C., Greening, K.L., Handley, J., Haworth, S., Kazmierczak, A.E., Johnston, M., Korpela, K., Moretti, M., Niemelä, J., Pauleit, S., Roe, M.H., Sadler, J.P., Ward Thompson, C. 2009. Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 8, 65–75.
  • Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y. 2006. Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environmental Management, 38 (3), 338–349.
  • Karjalainen, E. 2006. The visual preferences for forest regeneration and field afforestation—four case studies in Finland. Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Biosciences, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences and Finnish Forest Research Institute, December.
  • Kamierczak, A. 2013. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landscape Urban Planning, 109, 31–44.
  • Kaya, H.S., Bölen, F. 2011. Kentsel dokudaki değişimin fraktal geometri yöntemiyle incelenmesi. İTÜ Dergisi / A Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 10 (1), 39-50.
  • Kösa, S., Atik, M. 2013. Bitkisel peyzaj tasarımında renk ve form; çınar (Platanus orientalis) ve sığla (Liquidambar orientalis) kullanımında peyzaj mimarlığı öğrencilerinin tercihleri. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 14 (1), 13-24.
  • Madureira, H., Nunes, F., Oliveira, J.V., Cormier, L., Madureira, T. 2015. Urban residents’ beliefs concerning green space benefits in four cities in France and Portugal. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14, 56–64.
  • Oppenheim, A.N. 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. 2nd ed. Printer, London.
  • Packer, J., Ballantyne, R. 2002. Motivational factors and the visitor experience: a comparison of three sites. Curator, 45 (3), 183–198.
  • Peitgen, H.O., Jürgens, H., Saupe, D. 2004. Chaos and fractals: New Frontiers of Science: Springer Verlag Press.
  • Qin, J., Zhou, X., Sun, C., Lengd, H., Lian, Z. 2013. Influence of green spaces on environmental satisfaction and physiological status of urban residents. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 12, 490–497.
  • Ruelle, C., Halleux, J-M., Teller, J. 2013. Landscape quality and brownfield regeneration: a community investigation approach inspired by landscape preference studies, Landscape Research, 38 (1), 75-99.
  • Sander, H.A., Chang Zhao, C. 2015. Urban green and blue: Who values what and where? Land Use Policy, 42, 194–209.
  • Sarı, D., Karaşah, B. 2015. Hatila Vadisi Milli Parkı'nda (Artvin) yer alan farklı vejetasyon tiplerinin görsel değerlendirmesi üzerine bir çalışma. Türkiye Ormancılık Dergisi, 16 (1), 65-74.
  • Simonic, T. 2006. Urban landscape as a restorative environment: preferences and design considerations. Acta Agriculturae Slovenica, 87 (2), 325-332.
  • Song, X., Lv, X., Li, C. 2015. Willingness andmotivation of residents to pay for conservation of urban green spaces in Jinan, China, Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35, 89–94.
  • Spehar, B., Clifford, C.W.G., Newell, B.R., Taylor, R.P. 2003. Universal aesthetic of fractals. Computers and Graphics, 27, 813-820.
  • Tempesta, T. 2010. The perception of agrarian historical landscapes: A study of the Veneto plain in Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97 (4), 258–272.
  • Todorova, A., Asakawa, S., Aikoh, T. 2004. Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69 (4), 403–416.
  • Tyrväinen, L., Mäkinen, K., Schipperijn, J. 2007. Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79 (1), 5-9.
  • Tzoulas, K., James, P. 2010. Peoples use of, and concerns about, green space networks: a case study of Birchwood, Warrington New Town, UK. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 9, 8.
  • URL1, 2015. http://www.ngbb.org.tr/tr/.
  • Vries, S., Groot, M., Boers, J. 2012. Eyesores in sight: quantifying the impact of man-made elements on the scenic beauty Dutch landscapes. Landscape Urban and Planning, 105, 118-127.
  • Ward, C.D., Parker, C.M., Shackleton, C.M. 2010. The use and appreciation of botanical gardens as urban green spaces in South Africa. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 9, 49-55.
  • Wassenberg, C.L., Goldenberg, M.A., Soule, K.E. 2015. Benefits of botanical garden visitation: A means-end study. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14, 148–155.
  • Willison, J., Greene, J. 1994. Environmental education in botanic gardens: Guidelines for developing ındividual strategies. Botanic Gardens Conservation International, UK.
  • Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J., Newell, J.P. 2014. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244.
  • Yabiku, S.T., Casagrande, D.G., Farley-Metzger, E., 2008. Preferences for landscape choice in a southwestern desert city, Environment and Behavior, 40 (3), 382-400.

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1, 0 - 0, 02.06.2016

Banu Karaşah Mustafa Var

https://doi.org/10.17475/kujff.03116

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Akbar, K.F., Hale, W.H.G., Headley, A.D. 2003. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in Northern England. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63, 139–144.
  • Altınay, B., Anşin, R., Bakırcı, A., Bayındır, D., Bilgin, M., Çıngay, B., Denizyaran, A., Disperati, E.E., Gül, S., Gülenç, F., Güner, A., Kanoğlu, S.S., Kılıç, C.S., Kuşoğlu, B., Öcal, Ş., Öztekin, M., Yüzbaşıoğlu, S. 2011. Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi gezi rehberi. Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi Yayınları, ISBN: 978-605-60425-5-3.
  • Arnberger, A., Eder, R. 2015. Are urban visitors’ general preferences for green-spaces similar to their preferences when seeking stress relief? Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14 (4), 872-882.
  • Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Hughes, K. 2008. Environmental awareness, interests and motives of botanic gardens visitors: Implications for interpretive practice. Tourism Mangement, 29, 439-444.
  • Barrosa, F.L., Pinto-Correia, T., Ramos, I.L., Surova, D., Menezes, H. 2012. Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies: photo-based questionnaires in the mediterranean context, Landscape and Urban Planning, 104, 329-342.
  • Bell, S. (2004). Elements of visual design in the landscape. 2nd edn., Spon Press, London and New York.
  • Bennet, E.S., Swasey, J.E. 1996. Perceived stress reduction in urban public gardens. HortTechnology, 6 (2), 125-128.
  • Chen, B., Adimo, O.A., Bao, Z. 2009. Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban gren space from the users’ perspective: The case of Hangzhou Flower Garden, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 93, 76-82.
  • Clay, G.R., Daniel, T.C. 2000. Scenic landscape assessment: The effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49 (1-2), 1-13.
  • Connell, J. 2004. The of human pleasures: The characteristics and motivations of garden visitors in Great Britain. Tourism Management, 25, 229-247.
  • Connell, J., Meyer, D. 2004. Modelling the visitor experience in the gardens of Great Britain, Current Issues in Tourism, 7 (3), 183-216.
  • Crilley, G., Hills, J., Cairncross, G., Moskwa, E. 2010. Identifying visitor service quality in Australian regional botanic gardens. Annals of Leisure Research, 13 (3), 476-496.
  • Çakçı, I., Çelem, H. 2009. Kent parklarında görsel peyzaj algısının değerlendirilmesi. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 15 (1), 88-95.
  • Ediz, Ö., Çağdaş, G. 2005. Mimari tasarımda fraktal kurguya dayalı üretken bir yaklaşım. İTÜ Dergisi/a Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 4(1), 71-83.
  • Escobedo, F. J., Kroeger, T., Wagner, J. E. 2011. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution,159 (8), 2078–2087.
  • Frankhauser, P. 1998a. The fractal approach. A new tool for the spatial analysis of urban agglomerations. Population: An English Selection, 10 (1), 205-240.
  • Frankhauser, P. 1998b. Fractal geometry of urban patterns and their morphogenesis. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2 (2), 127-145.
  • Fuller, R.A., Irvine, K.N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P.H., Gaston, K. J. 2007.Psychological benefits of green space increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3, 390–394.
  • Groenewegen, P., van den Berg, A., de Vries, S., Verheij, R. 2006. Vitamin G: Effects of green space on health, well-being, and social safety. BMC Public Health, 6(1),149.
  • He, H., Chen, J. 2011. Preliminary research on the visiting motivation and satisfaction of visitors to Chinese botanical gardens. Biodiversity Science, 19, 589–596.
  • He, H., Chen, J. 2012. Educational and enjoyment benefits of visitor education centers at botanical gardens. Biological Conservation, 149, 103–112.
  • Kalıpsız, A. 1981. İstatistik Yöntemler. İÜ Orman Fakültesi, Yayın No: 2837, OF Yayın No:294, İstanbul.
  • James, P., Tzoulas, K., Adams, M.D., Barber, A., Box, J., Breuste, J., Elmqvist, T., Frith, M., Gordon, C., Greening, K.L., Handley, J., Haworth, S., Kazmierczak, A.E., Johnston, M., Korpela, K., Moretti, M., Niemelä, J., Pauleit, S., Roe, M.H., Sadler, J.P., Ward Thompson, C. 2009. Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 8, 65–75.
  • Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y. 2006. Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environmental Management, 38 (3), 338–349.
  • Karjalainen, E. 2006. The visual preferences for forest regeneration and field afforestation—four case studies in Finland. Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Biosciences, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences and Finnish Forest Research Institute, December.
  • Kamierczak, A. 2013. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landscape Urban Planning, 109, 31–44.
  • Kaya, H.S., Bölen, F. 2011. Kentsel dokudaki değişimin fraktal geometri yöntemiyle incelenmesi. İTÜ Dergisi / A Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 10 (1), 39-50.
  • Kösa, S., Atik, M. 2013. Bitkisel peyzaj tasarımında renk ve form; çınar (Platanus orientalis) ve sığla (Liquidambar orientalis) kullanımında peyzaj mimarlığı öğrencilerinin tercihleri. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 14 (1), 13-24.
  • Madureira, H., Nunes, F., Oliveira, J.V., Cormier, L., Madureira, T. 2015. Urban residents’ beliefs concerning green space benefits in four cities in France and Portugal. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14, 56–64.
  • Oppenheim, A.N. 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. 2nd ed. Printer, London.
  • Packer, J., Ballantyne, R. 2002. Motivational factors and the visitor experience: a comparison of three sites. Curator, 45 (3), 183–198.
  • Peitgen, H.O., Jürgens, H., Saupe, D. 2004. Chaos and fractals: New Frontiers of Science: Springer Verlag Press.
  • Qin, J., Zhou, X., Sun, C., Lengd, H., Lian, Z. 2013. Influence of green spaces on environmental satisfaction and physiological status of urban residents. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 12, 490–497.
  • Ruelle, C., Halleux, J-M., Teller, J. 2013. Landscape quality and brownfield regeneration: a community investigation approach inspired by landscape preference studies, Landscape Research, 38 (1), 75-99.
  • Sander, H.A., Chang Zhao, C. 2015. Urban green and blue: Who values what and where? Land Use Policy, 42, 194–209.
  • Sarı, D., Karaşah, B. 2015. Hatila Vadisi Milli Parkı'nda (Artvin) yer alan farklı vejetasyon tiplerinin görsel değerlendirmesi üzerine bir çalışma. Türkiye Ormancılık Dergisi, 16 (1), 65-74.
  • Simonic, T. 2006. Urban landscape as a restorative environment: preferences and design considerations. Acta Agriculturae Slovenica, 87 (2), 325-332.
  • Song, X., Lv, X., Li, C. 2015. Willingness andmotivation of residents to pay for conservation of urban green spaces in Jinan, China, Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35, 89–94.
  • Spehar, B., Clifford, C.W.G., Newell, B.R., Taylor, R.P. 2003. Universal aesthetic of fractals. Computers and Graphics, 27, 813-820.
  • Tempesta, T. 2010. The perception of agrarian historical landscapes: A study of the Veneto plain in Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97 (4), 258–272.
  • Todorova, A., Asakawa, S., Aikoh, T. 2004. Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69 (4), 403–416.
  • Tyrväinen, L., Mäkinen, K., Schipperijn, J. 2007. Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79 (1), 5-9.
  • Tzoulas, K., James, P. 2010. Peoples use of, and concerns about, green space networks: a case study of Birchwood, Warrington New Town, UK. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 9, 8.
  • URL1, 2015. http://www.ngbb.org.tr/tr/.
  • Vries, S., Groot, M., Boers, J. 2012. Eyesores in sight: quantifying the impact of man-made elements on the scenic beauty Dutch landscapes. Landscape Urban and Planning, 105, 118-127.
  • Ward, C.D., Parker, C.M., Shackleton, C.M. 2010. The use and appreciation of botanical gardens as urban green spaces in South Africa. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 9, 49-55.
  • Wassenberg, C.L., Goldenberg, M.A., Soule, K.E. 2015. Benefits of botanical garden visitation: A means-end study. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14, 148–155.
  • Willison, J., Greene, J. 1994. Environmental education in botanic gardens: Guidelines for developing ındividual strategies. Botanic Gardens Conservation International, UK.
  • Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J., Newell, J.P. 2014. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244.
  • Yabiku, S.T., Casagrande, D.G., Farley-Metzger, E., 2008. Preferences for landscape choice in a southwestern desert city, Environment and Behavior, 40 (3), 382-400.
Toplam 50 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Banu Karaşah

Mustafa Var

Yayımlanma Tarihi 2 Haziran 2016
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2016 Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Karaşah, B., & Var, M. (2016). Botanik Bahçelerinde Ziyaretçi Tercihlerinin Belirlenmesi ‘Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi Örneği’. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.17475/kujff.03116
AMA Karaşah B, Var M. Botanik Bahçelerinde Ziyaretçi Tercihlerinin Belirlenmesi ‘Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi Örneği’. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty. Haziran 2016;16(1). doi:10.17475/kujff.03116
Chicago Karaşah, Banu, ve Mustafa Var. “Botanik Bahçelerinde Ziyaretçi Tercihlerinin Belirlenmesi ‘Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi Örneği’”. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty 16, sy. 1 (Haziran 2016). https://doi.org/10.17475/kujff.03116.
EndNote Karaşah B, Var M (01 Haziran 2016) Botanik Bahçelerinde Ziyaretçi Tercihlerinin Belirlenmesi ‘Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi Örneği’. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty 16 1
IEEE B. Karaşah ve M. Var, “Botanik Bahçelerinde Ziyaretçi Tercihlerinin Belirlenmesi ‘Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi Örneği’”, Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty, c. 16, sy. 1, 2016, doi: 10.17475/kujff.03116.
ISNAD Karaşah, Banu - Var, Mustafa. “Botanik Bahçelerinde Ziyaretçi Tercihlerinin Belirlenmesi ‘Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi Örneği’”. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty 16/1 (Haziran 2016). https://doi.org/10.17475/kujff.03116.
JAMA Karaşah B, Var M. Botanik Bahçelerinde Ziyaretçi Tercihlerinin Belirlenmesi ‘Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi Örneği’. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty. 2016;16. doi:10.17475/kujff.03116.
MLA Karaşah, Banu ve Mustafa Var. “Botanik Bahçelerinde Ziyaretçi Tercihlerinin Belirlenmesi ‘Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi Örneği’”. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty, c. 16, sy. 1, 2016, doi:10.17475/kujff.03116.
Vancouver Karaşah B, Var M. Botanik Bahçelerinde Ziyaretçi Tercihlerinin Belirlenmesi ‘Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi Örneği’. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty. 2016;16(1).

14178  14179       14165           14166           14167            14168