SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Issues / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1

Integrating Justinian's Bridge into Tourism-Landscape Identity within the Context of Cultural Landscape

Gizem Cengiz Gökçe
Gökçe Bektaş Onay
Akif Gökçe
Pages
18–33
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This study provides a framework for integrating historical infrastructure into sustainable tourism development by linking cultural landscape assessment with tourism-oriented spatial planning, and offers a landscape-based perspective for the preservation and management of historical bridges.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Cultural landscapes are dynamic spatial systems formed by the long-term interaction of natural and cultural elements, shaping urban identity and collective memory.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The Justinian Bridge in Sakarya, built in 562 AD, stands out as one of the significant Late Antique infrastructures of Anatolia.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study provides a framework for integrating historical infrastructure into sustainable tourism development by linking cultural landscape assessment with tourism-oriented spatial planning, and offers a landscape-based perspective for the preservation and management of historical bridges.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kültürel Peyzaj · Peyzaj Planlama · Sürdürülebilir Turizm

Abstract

Cultural landscapes are dynamic spatial systems formed by the long-term interaction of natural and cultural elements, shaping urban identity and collective memory. In this context, historical bridges are not only engineering structures but also important components of cultural heritage and spatial continuity. The Justinian Bridge in Sakarya, built in 562 AD, stands out as one of the significant Late Antique infrastructures of Anatolia. However, the bridge's landscape identity and tourism potential have not been adequately assessed, and it has been integrated into contemporary tourism strategies to a limited extent. This study examines the Justinian Bridge within the framework of the relationship between cultural landscape and tourism, evaluating its potential contribution to sustainable tourism development. The research employs a qualitative case study method based on literature review, field observations, spatial analyses, and examination of existing planning documents. The findings show that despite the bridge's high historical, visual, and symbolic value, it is weakly integrated into the tourism system due to insufficient promotion, limited interpretive infrastructure, and deficiencies in landscape-focused planning. The study reveals that interpretive design, digital wayfinding systems, and holistic landscape planning strategies can increase the bridge's visibility and contribute to the integrity of Sakarya's cultural landscape. This study provides a framework for integrating historical infrastructure into sustainable tourism development by linking cultural landscape assessment with tourism-oriented spatial planning, and offers a landscape-based perspective for the preservation and management of historical bridges.

Özet

Cultural landscapes are dynamic spatial systems formed by the long-term interaction of natural and cultural elements, shaping urban identity and collective memory. In this context, historical bridges are not only engineering structures but also important components of cultural heritage and spatial continuity. The Justinian Bridge in Sakarya, built in 562 AD, stands out as one of the significant Late Antique infrastructures of Anatolia. However, the bridge's landscape identity and tourism potential have not been adequately assessed, and it has been integrated into contemporary tourism strategies to a limited extent. This study examines the Justinian Bridge within the framework of the relationship between cultural landscape and tourism, evaluating its potential contribution to sustainable tourism development. The research employs a qualitative case study method based on literature review, field observations, spatial analyses, and examination of existing planning documents. The findings show that despite the bridge's high historical, visual, and symbolic value, it is weakly integrated into the tourism system due to insufficient promotion, limited interpretive infrastructure, and deficiencies in landscape-focused planning. The study reveals that interpretive design, digital wayfinding systems, and holistic landscape planning strategies can increase the bridge's visibility and contribute to the integrity of Sakarya's cultural landscape. This study provides a framework for integrating historical infrastructure into sustainable tourism development by linking cultural landscape assessment with tourism-oriented spatial planning, and offers a landscape-based perspective for the preservation and management of historical bridges.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gökçe, G. C., Onay, G. B., Gökçe, A. (2026). Integrating Justinian's Bridge into Tourism-Landscape Identity within the Context of Cultural Landscape. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Issues, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.51525/johti.1919236

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

↗New Tab

References (36)

  1. ANB (2025). Justinianus Bridge. https://anbmimarlik.com/en/project/justiniaus-bridge/ Retrieved on 09.12.2025.
  2. Atıl, A., Gülgün, B., & Yörük, İ. (2005). Sürdürülebilir kentler ve peyzaj mimarlığı. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University, 42(2), 215-226.
  3. Balaban, A. T., & Kösten, E. Y. (2023). An analytical approach to the traces of settlement of the city of Sakarya from antiquity to the present. DEPARCH Journal of Design Planning and Aesthetics Research, 2(2), 172-199. https://doi.org/10.55755/DepArch.2023.22
  4. Bilgiçli, İ. (2023). Sakarya ili turizm değerlerinin SWOT analizi. In O. Çelen & A. Ünal (Eds.), Turizm ve Destinasyon Araştırmaları III (pp. 59–76). Paradigma Akademi.
  5. Billington, R., Strawbridge, S., Greensides, L., & Fitzsimons, A. (2013). “Kültür”ü tanımlamak (Translate: Günseli Altaylar). In Giddens, A. (Ed.) Sosyoloji başlangıç okumaları (pp. 33-39). Say Yayınları.
  6. Cengiz Gökçe, G. (2018). Kültürel peyzaj-turizm ilişkisine yönelik kırsal kimlik koruma modeli: Nallıhan-Beydili örneği (Thesis No: 516167) [Doctoral dissertation, Bartın University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  7. Cengiz Gökçe, G. (2023). Rural identity protection model in cultural landscape-tourism relations. Özgür Publications. https://doi.org/10.58830/ozgur.pub405
  8. Cengiz Gökçe, G., & Açıksöz, S. (2014). Turizmin kültürel peyzaj bileşenleri ve kırsal kimlik üzerine etkisi: Nallıhan Beydili köyü örneği. In II. International Symposium on Environment and Morality Proceedings Book Volume 2, (pp. 1059-1068), 24-26 October, Adıyaman.
  9. Cengiz Gökçe, G., & Açıksöz, S. (2015). Kültürel peyzaj bileşenleri ve turizm ilişkisinde görsel peyzaj analizi: Nallıhan-Beydili köyü örneği. In I. Eurasia International Tourism Congress: Current Issues, Trends and Indicators (EITOC)-(I. Avrasya Uluslararası Turizm Kongresi: Güncel Konular, Eğilimler ve Göstergeler) Proceedings Book Volume 1, (pp. 409-419), 28-30 May, Konya.
  10. Cengiz Gökçe, G., & Açıksöz, S. (2022). Evaluation of the relationship between cultural landscape and identity of rural landscape with mind map method. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 31(7), 6962-6972.
  11. Demir, M., & Alpargu, M. (2005). Sakarya ili tarihi 2. cilt. T.C. Sakarya University Rectorate Publishing.
  12. Emekli, G. (2011*). Öğrenen turizm bölgeleri, kentler ve kent turizmine kuramsal yaklaşım. Aegean Geographical Journal, 20/2 (2011), 27–39. (*Published in 2014)
  13. Erdem Kaya, M. (2013). Landscape change and rural policy: An identity based approach to rural settlement. ITU A|Z, 10(2), 94-110.
  14. Fischer, J. & Fischer, O. (1985). Prague bridges. Prague Academia.
  15. Fowler, P. J. (2003). World heritage cultural landscapes 1992-2002. UNESCO World Heritage Center.
  16. Güçlü, D. (2024). Tarih ve turizm arasındaki bağlantı: Köprüler. The Journal of International Language, Literature, Culture, History, Art and Education Research, 15, 1541-1561. https://doi.org/10.51531/korkutataturkiyat.1454641
  17. Gündoğdu, H., Bayhan, A. A., Aktemur, A. M., Kukaracı, İ. U., Çelik, A., & Güneş, B. (2006). Tarihi yaşatan il Tokat. PYS Vakıfsistem Publishing.
  18. Iriz, İ. C. (2022). Arkeolojik alanların kente entegrasyonu: Justinianus Köprüsü (Thesis No: 751299) [Master Thesis, Dokuz Eylül University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  19. Kalem, S. (2001). Doğal ve kültürel değerlerin korunabilmesi için turizm potansiyelinin belirlenmesinde bir yöntem yaklaşımı ve Kastamonu ili kıyı bölgesi ve yakın çevresinde uygulanması (Thesis No:104582) [Doctoral Dissertation, Ankara Üniversitesi]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  20. Koçan, N. (2012). Kütahya-Eskigediz tarihi kent dokusunun peyzaj mimarlığı açısından değerlendirilmesi. Ordu University Journal of Science and Techonology, 2(1), 81–96.
  21. Mellinger, W. (1994). Toward a critical analysis of tourism representations. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(4), 756-779.
  22. Mentese, V. G., Gedik, Y. H., Gunes, O., & Korkmaz, K. A. (2016). Structural investigation on Justinianus Bridge in Sakarya city of Turkey. In The First Istanbul Bridge Conference Proceedings (pp. 1-10). İstanbul, Türkiye
  23. Mrđa, A. & Šćitaroci, B. B. O. (2016). Relationship between tourism and cultural landscape–a new sustainable development model. In Proceedıngs of Tcl 2016 Conference Infota (Vol. 2016, pp. 376-384). Budapest, Hungary.
  24. Rössler, M. (2006). World Heritage cultural landscapes: A UNESCO flagship programme 1992 – 2006. Landscape Research, 31(4), 333–353.
  25. Şahin, S. (2013). Iustinianus’un Bithynia’da Sakarya Nehri üzerinde inşa ettirdiği köprü ve kanal tesisleri. Eskiçağ Yazıları, 4, 1-30.
  26. Sakarya Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism. (2025). Historic Justinianus Bridge. https://sakarya.ktb.gov.tr/TR-340117/tarihi-justinianus-koprusu.html, Retrieved date: 22.12.2025.
  27. Sezer, İ. (2017). Kültürel mirasın turizm açısından değerlendirilmesi: Taşköprü ilçesi örneği. International Journal of Turkic World Tourism Studies, 2(2), 175-198.
  28. Tunbridge, J. E., & Ashworth, G. J. (1996). Dissonant heritage: The management of the past as a resource in conflict. John Wiley & Sons.
  29. Türkiye Kültür Portalı. (2025). Justinianus Köprüsü. https://www.kulturportali.gov.tr/turkiye/sakarya/gezilecekyer/justinianus-koprusu Retrieved date: 29.11.2025.
  30. Ulama, Ş. (2015). Turizm tanıtım broşürlerinde destinasyon imajı analizi: Türkiye örneği. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 6(11), 231-246.
  31. UNESCO. (2008). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. World Heritage Centre.
  32. Ural, A. (2005). Tarihi kemer köprülerin sonlu eleman metoduyla analizi. In Deprem Sempozyumu Kocaeli 2005 (pp. 408-413). Kocaeli, Türkiye
  33. Uslu, A. & Kiper, T. (2006). Turizmin kültürel miras üzerine etkileri: Beypazarı/Ankara örneğinde yerel halkın farkındalığı. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(3), 305-314.
  34. Üste, C. (2011). Sakarya İli Beşköprü (Sangarios, Justinianus Köprüsü)’nün koruma ve restorasyon önerisi (Thesis No: 293038) [Master Thesis, Gazi University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  35. Vardar, S., İlhan, R., Öner, E., & Kenar, F. (2019). Justinianus Köprüsü çevresinde delgi sondaj yöntemli paleocoğrafya-jeoarkeoloji araştırmalarının ön sonuçları. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (33), 756–796. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.643558
  36. Zile Municipality Official Website (2025a). Hacıboz Köprüsü. https://site.zile.bel.tr/index.php/2021/02/01/hanboz-koprusu/attachment/18216670/ Retrieved date 28.04.2025.