
| Course Code | : PM406 |
| Course Type | : Required |
| Couse Group | : First Cycle (Bachelor's Degree) |
| Education Language | : Turkish |
| Work Placement | : N/A |
| Theory | : 4 |
| Prt. | : 2 |
| Credit | : 5 |
| Lab | : 0 |
| ECTS | : 7 |
In this course, it is aimed to transform the spatial context, inventory, and analysis findings developed for the study area selected within the scope of Planning Studio I into the stages of synthesis, strategy development, focus area selection, and planning decision-making. The course aims to enable students to develop planning decisions in line with the principles of conservation-use balance, ecological thresholds, open-green space systems, green infrastructure, ecosystem services, and sustainable land use by interpreting natural, cultural, socio-economic, and spatial landscape layers together. Within the scope of the course, it is intended to strengthen students’ ability to transfer synthesis and strategy decisions developed at upper scales through inventory and analysis studies to focus areas, justify levels of intervention, establish consistency across scales, and express planning decisions through sheets, reports, and jury/project presentations.
In this course, the synthesis, strategy development, focus area selection, and planning decision-making stages of the landscape planning process are addressed through a studio/project-based approach based on a selected case study area. Previous analyses and field observations related to the study area are re-evaluated in terms of problems, opportunities, pressures, threats, sensitivities, potentials, and spatial thresholds. Students are expected to produce synthesis and strategy sheets, focus area sheets, a planning decisions report, conceptual spatial representation outputs, and a jury/project presentation. Throughout the course, decisions related to conservation, improvement, guidance, limitation, and sustainable use are associated with open-green space systems, green infrastructure, ecosystem services, natural and cultural heritage values, and environmental impacts. Course assessment is based on in-term studies and the final examination. The in-term assessment accounts for 40% of the total grade and consists of class participation/performance, assignments, and the midterm examination. The end-of-term assessment is based on the final examination, which accounts for 60% of the total grade. The final submission consists of synthesis and strategy sheets, focus area sheets, a planning decisions report, and a project presentation. The assessment takes into account the relationship between planning decisions and analyses, consistency across scales, the quality of sheet and report narratives, presentation quality, and the student’s development throughout the studio process. Students retaking the course are required to complete all assignments, class participation/performance activities, and examinations again in accordance with the current assessment and evaluation structure of the course.
| Prof. Ebru ERSOY TONYALOĞLU |
| 1. | To evaluate the analysis, inventory and field observation findings produced in Planning Studio I as a basis for spatial planning decisions (Knowledge, Skills and Competence Level). |
| 2. | To interpret problems, opportunities, pressures, threats, sensitivities, and potentials holistically by reading the natural, cultural, socio-economic, and spatial layers of the landscape together. |
| 3. | To define a planning vision, objectives, targets and intervention priorities in response to environmental pressures, ecological sensitivities, problems, opportunities and potentials (Knowledge, Skills and Competence Level). |
| 4. | To produce land-use decisions, focus area decisions and planning decisions in line with the principles of conservation-use balance, ecosystem services, open-green space systems, green infrastructure and sustainable land use (Knowledge, Skills and Competence Level). |
| 5. | To express the developed synthesis, strategy, focus area and planning decisions, together with their justifications, visually, in writing and orally through boards, reports and jury/project presentations (Knowledge, Skills and Competence Level). |
| 1. | Kaya, M. Y., & Uzun, O. (2019). Ekosistem hizmetleri ve mekânsal planlama ilişkisinin peyzaj planlama çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesi. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 7(3), 2166-2193. |
| 2. | Steiner, F. R. (2012). The living landscape: an ecological approach to landscape planning. Island Press. |
| 3. | Leitao, A. B., & Ahern, J. (2002). Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and urban planning, 59(2), 65-93. |
| 4. | Tress, B., Tres, G., Fry, G., & Opdam, P. (Eds.). (2005). From landscape research to landscape planning: Aspects of integration, education and application (Vol. 12). Springer Science & Business Media. |
| 5. | Ahern, J. (2006). Theories, methods and strategies for sustainable landscape planning. From landscape research to landscape planning. Aspects of integration, education and application, 119-131. |
| 6. | Selman, P. (2012). Sustainable landscape planning: The reconnection agenda. Routledge. |
| 7. | Machar, I. (2020). Sustainable landscape management and planning. Sustainability, 12(6), 2354. |
| 8. | Tress, B., Tres, G., Fry, G., & Opdam, P. (Eds.). (2005). From landscape research to landscape planning: Aspects of integration, education and application (Vol. 12). Springer Science & Business Media. |
| 9. | Selman, P. (2006). Planning at the landscape scale. Routledge. |
| 10. | von Haaren, C., Lovett, A. A., & Albert, C. (2019). Landscape planning with ecosystem services. Springer Netherlands. |
| 11. | Austin, G. (2014). Green infrastructure for landscape planning: integrating human and natural systems. Routledge. |
| 12. | La Riccia, L. (2017). Landscape planning at the local level. Springer International Publishing. |
| 13. | Cassatella, C., & Peano, A. (2011). Landscape indicators. Springer. |
| 14. | Steinitz, C. (2008). Landscape planning: A brief history of influential ideas. Journal of Landscape Architecture, 3(1), 68-74. |
| Type of Assessment | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Attending Lectures | 1 | %5 |
| Land Work | 1 | %5 |
| Assignment | 2 | %20 |
| Project | 1 | %60 |
| Midterm Examination | 1 | %10 |
| Activities | Count | Preparation | Time | Total Work Load (hours) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lecture - Theory | 14 | 0 | 4 | 63 |
| Lecture - Practice | 14 | 1 | 2 | 42 |
| Assignment | 3 | 7 | 3 | 30 |
| Project | 1 | 20 | 10 | 30 |
| Land Work | 1 | 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Midterm Examination | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| TOTAL WORKLOAD (hours) | 175 | |||
PÇ-1 | PÇ-2 | PÇ-3 | PÇ-4 | PÇ-5 | PÇ-6 | PÇ-7 | PÇ-8 | PÇ-9 | PÇ-10 | PÇ-11 | PÇ-12 | |
OÇ-1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | |||||
OÇ-2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 4 | ||||
OÇ-3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 5 | |||
OÇ-4 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 5 | ||
OÇ-5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | |||