Geospatial technologies for physical planning: Bridging the gap between earth science and planning

Süha BERBEROĞLU, (Çukurova Üniversitesi, Adana, Türkiye)
ANIL AKIN, (Bursa Teknik Üniversitesi, Bursa, Türkiye)
Onur ŞATIR, (Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Van, Türkiye)
Cenk Donmez, (Çukurova Üniversitesi, Adana, Türkiye)
Ahmet ÇİLEK, (Çukurova Üniversitesi, Adana, Türkiye)
merve sahingoz (Çukurova Üniversitesi, Adana, Türkiye)
Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning
1 0
Yıl: 2022 Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 213 - 223 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2054 İndeks Tarihi: 20-03-2023

Geospatial technologies for physical planning: Bridging the gap between earth science and planning

Öz:
The application of geospatial information technologies has increased recently due to increase in data sources from the earth sciences. The systematic data collection, storage and processing together with data transformation require geospatial information technologies. Rapidly developing computer technology has become an effective tool in design and physical planning in international platforms. Especially, the availability of geospatial information technologies (remote sensing, GIS, spatial models and GPS) for diverse disciplines and the capability of these technologies in data conversion from two dimensions to the three dimensions provide great efficiency. Thus, this study explores how digital technologies are reshaping physical planning and design. While the potential of digital technologies is well documented within physical planning and visualization, its application within practice is far less understood. This paper highlights the role of the geospatial information technologies in encouraging a new planning and design logic that moves from the privileging of the visual to a focus on processes of formation, bridging the interface of the earth science and physical planning.
Anahtar Kelime: remote sensing GIS Spatial models GPS

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Akın A., Berberoğlu, S., Clarke K., (2014). The impact of historical exclusion on the calibration of the SLEUTH urban growth model. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 24, 156-168.
  • Akın, A., (2011). Adana kentsel gelişiminin uzaktan algılama ve coğrafi bilgi sistemleri kullanılarak modellenmesi. Çukurova Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Ana Bilim Dalı, Doktora Tezi.
  • Batty, M., (1995). Planning Support Systems and the New Logic of Computation, Regional Development Dialogue, 16 (1), 1-17.
  • Berberoğlu, S., Akın A., Clarke K., (2016). Cellular automata modeling approaches to forecast urban growth for Adana, Turkey, A comparative approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 153, 11-27.
  • Bradfielda, R., Wrightb, G., Cairnsb, B.G., Heijden, K. (2005). The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures, 37:795–812.
  • Brail, R.K. & Klosterman, R. E., (2001) (eds.) Planning Support Systems, ESRI Press, California pp.
  • Ceuclelis, H., (1982). Planning and System Approach: Exploring Some Myths, Creating Reality, Human and Energy Factors, in Urban Planning: A System Approach, Laconte, P., Gibson, J.E. and A. Rapoport (eds.) p:65-78, Springer
  • Chakraborty, A.; McMillan, A. (2015). Scenario Planning for Urban Planners: Toward a Practitioner’s Guide. J. Am.Plan. Assoc. 81:1–12.
  • Clarke, K.C., Hoppen, S., Gaydos, L. (1997) A Self-Modifying Cellular Automaton Model of Historical Urbanization in the San Francisco Bay Area. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Volume: 24 issue: 2, page(s): 247-261
  • Clarke, K., Gaydos, L. J. (1998). Loose coupling a cellular automaton model and GIS: long-term urban growth prediction for San Francisco and Washington/Baltimore. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 12 7, 699-714.
  • Colomina I, Molina P (2014). Unmanned aerial systems for photogrammetry and re-mote sensing: A review. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.02.013.
  • Çubukçu, K. M. (2008). Planlamada Klasik Sayısal Yöntemler, ODTÜ Yayıncılık.
  • Davidoff, P., Reiner, T.A. (1962). A Choice Theory of Planning. Journal of The American Planning Association, 28, 103-115.
  • Dawwas, E. (2018). Towards a Land Use –Transportation Interactive Modeling: a Conceptual Model for Collaborative Planning. Journal of Engineering and Architecture. 6, 91-100.
  • Dietzel, C., Clarke, K.C., (2007). Toward optimal calibration of the SLEUTH land use change model. Transactions in GIS, 11:(1), 29–45.
  • Easa, S.M., Strauss, T.R., Hassan, Y., Souleyrette, R.R., (2022). Three-Dimensional Transportation Analysis: Planning and Design. Journal of Transportation Engineering.
  • González-Jorge H, Martínez-Sánchez J, Bueno M, Arias P (2017). Unmanned Aerial Systems for Civil Applications: A Review. Drones, 1 (1), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones1010002.
  • Heijden, K. (1996). Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation, Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  • Jantz, C.J., Goetz, S.J., Donato, D., Claggett, P., (2010). Designing and implementing a regional urban modeling system using the SLEUTH cellular urban model. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 34: 1–16.
  • Klosterman, R.E. (1997). Planning Support Systems: A New Perspective on Computer-Aided Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17 (1): 45–54.
  • Lord, S., Fremond, M., Bilgin, R., Gerber, P. (2015). Growth modelling and the management of urban sprawl: Questioning the performance of sustainable planning policies. Planning Theory & Practice, 16:385-406.
  • McHarg, I.L., (1969). Design with nature. Garden City, N.Y., Published for the American Museum of Natural History [by] the Natural History Press.
  • OECD, (2011). Development Co-operation Report.
  • Pillkahn, U. (2008). Using Trends and Scenarios as Tools for Strategy Development, Erlangen, Germany: Publicis Corporate Publishing.
  • Remondino F, Barazzetti L, Nex F, Scaioni M, Sarazzi D (2012). UAV photo-grammetry for mapping and 3d modeling – current status and future perspectives. ISPRS – International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XXXVIII-1/, 25-31. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XXXVIII-1-C22-25-2011.
  • Saunders, A., Duncan, J., Hurley, J., Amati, M., Cacceta, P., Chia, J., Boruff, B. (2020). Leaf my neighbourhood alone! predicting the influence of densification on residential tree canopy cover in Perth. Landscape and Urban Planning, 199, 103804.
  • Silva, E.A., and Clarke K.C. (2005). Complexity, emergence and cellular urban models: lessons learned from applying SLEUTH to two Portuguese metropolitan areas, European Planning Studies, 13, 93-115
  • Şatır, O., (2013). Determining the agricultural land use suitability using remote sensing and geographical information system in Lower Seyhan Plane. In: PhD Thesis. Cukurova University Natural and Applied Sciences Ins, Adana, Turkey.
  • Şatır, O., Yeler, O., Kemeç, S. (2022). Spatial analysis methods used in the planning of urban green areas and their usage opportunities. Yuzuncu Yil University, Journal of the Institute of Natural and Applied Science (in press).
  • Taylor, N., (1998). Urban Planning Theory Since 1945, SAGE Publications Thapa, R.B., Murayama, Y. (2012). Scenario based urban growth allocation in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105: 140– 148.
  • White, B., (1974).The Literature and Study of Urban and Regional Planning, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
APA berberoglu s, AKIN A, SATIR O, Donmez C, Cilek A, ŞAHİNGÖZ M (2022). Geospatial technologies for physical planning: Bridging the gap between earth science and planning. , 213 - 223. 10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2054
Chicago berberoglu suha,AKIN ANIL,SATIR ONUR,Donmez Cenk,Cilek Ahmet,ŞAHİNGÖZ Merve Geospatial technologies for physical planning: Bridging the gap between earth science and planning. (2022): 213 - 223. 10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2054
MLA berberoglu suha,AKIN ANIL,SATIR ONUR,Donmez Cenk,Cilek Ahmet,ŞAHİNGÖZ Merve Geospatial technologies for physical planning: Bridging the gap between earth science and planning. , 2022, ss.213 - 223. 10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2054
AMA berberoglu s,AKIN A,SATIR O,Donmez C,Cilek A,ŞAHİNGÖZ M Geospatial technologies for physical planning: Bridging the gap between earth science and planning. . 2022; 213 - 223. 10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2054
Vancouver berberoglu s,AKIN A,SATIR O,Donmez C,Cilek A,ŞAHİNGÖZ M Geospatial technologies for physical planning: Bridging the gap between earth science and planning. . 2022; 213 - 223. 10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2054
IEEE berberoglu s,AKIN A,SATIR O,Donmez C,Cilek A,ŞAHİNGÖZ M "Geospatial technologies for physical planning: Bridging the gap between earth science and planning." , ss.213 - 223, 2022. 10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2054
ISNAD berberoglu, suha vd. "Geospatial technologies for physical planning: Bridging the gap between earth science and planning". (2022), 213-223. https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2054
APA berberoglu s, AKIN A, SATIR O, Donmez C, Cilek A, ŞAHİNGÖZ M (2022). Geospatial technologies for physical planning: Bridging the gap between earth science and planning. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, 3(2), 213 - 223. 10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2054
Chicago berberoglu suha,AKIN ANIL,SATIR ONUR,Donmez Cenk,Cilek Ahmet,ŞAHİNGÖZ Merve Geospatial technologies for physical planning: Bridging the gap between earth science and planning. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning 3, no.2 (2022): 213 - 223. 10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2054
MLA berberoglu suha,AKIN ANIL,SATIR ONUR,Donmez Cenk,Cilek Ahmet,ŞAHİNGÖZ Merve Geospatial technologies for physical planning: Bridging the gap between earth science and planning. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, vol.3, no.2, 2022, ss.213 - 223. 10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2054
AMA berberoglu s,AKIN A,SATIR O,Donmez C,Cilek A,ŞAHİNGÖZ M Geospatial technologies for physical planning: Bridging the gap between earth science and planning. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning. 2022; 3(2): 213 - 223. 10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2054
Vancouver berberoglu s,AKIN A,SATIR O,Donmez C,Cilek A,ŞAHİNGÖZ M Geospatial technologies for physical planning: Bridging the gap between earth science and planning. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning. 2022; 3(2): 213 - 223. 10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2054
IEEE berberoglu s,AKIN A,SATIR O,Donmez C,Cilek A,ŞAHİNGÖZ M "Geospatial technologies for physical planning: Bridging the gap between earth science and planning." Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, 3, ss.213 - 223, 2022. 10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2054
ISNAD berberoglu, suha vd. "Geospatial technologies for physical planning: Bridging the gap between earth science and planning". Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning 3/2 (2022), 213-223. https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2054
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
24-04-2024 3:2

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları