SavedAdd your journal

Journals / GSI Journals Serie A: Advancements in Tourism Recreation and Sports Sciences / 2026 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1

Evaluation of the Recreation Potential of Karaahmetli Nature Park

Karaahmetli Tabiat Parkı’nın Rekreasyon Potansiyelinin Değerlendirilmesi

M. Bihter Bingül Bulut(KIRIKKALE UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF FINE ARTS, DEPARTMENT OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, DEPARTMENT OF LANDSCAPE PLANNING)0000-0003-4496-8198
Pages
259–271
Publication Date
2023-02-28
🏛️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)

Evaluation of the recreational potential of nature parks helps to make decisions in nature conservation and urban planning, recreation and tourism planning processes and to improve our understanding of how the natural environment contributes to the benefits and outcomes of recreation by integrating with recreational ecosystem services studies that focus on which ecosystem components contribute to the provision of recreational opportunities.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The recreational value of a natural area is determined by evaluating the current environmental conditions of that area and its natural and cultural landscape features.
📊
Key Findings & Data:By evaluating the natural and cultural components 70% recreation potential was determined for the nature park.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Evaluation of the recreational potential of nature parks helps to make decisions in nature conservation and urban planning, recreation and tourism planning processes and to improve our understanding of how the natural environment contributes to the benefits and outcomes of recreation by integrating with recreational ecosystem services studies that focus on which ecosystem components contribute to the provision of recreational opportunities.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Rekreasyon potansiyeli · Gülez yöntemi · tabiat parkı

Abstract

The recreational value of a natural area is determined by evaluating the current environmental conditions of that area and its natural and cultural landscape features. Studies on the recreation potential of nature parks based on the expression 'having recreation potential' specified in the criteria for recognition of a Natural Park are available in the national literature. However, no such study was found in Karaahmetli Nature Park, which is the material of this study. In this study, Gülez Method was used as a techique to evaluate the potential of the Karaahmetli Nature Park. On-site observation, interviews with authorities, and expert opinions were carried out. By evaluating the natural and cultural components 70% recreation potential was determined for the nature park. Evaluation of the recreational potential of nature parks helps to make decisions in nature conservation and urban planning, recreation and tourism planning processes and to improve our understanding of how the natural environment contributes to the benefits and outcomes of recreation by integrating with recreational ecosystem services studies that focus on which ecosystem components contribute to the provision of recreational opportunities.

Özet

Bir alanın rekreasyon değeri o alanın mevcut çevre koşulları ve sahip olduğu doğal ve kültürel peyzaj özellikleri değerlendirilerek belirlenir. Mevzuatta Tabiat Parkı olabilme kriterlerinde belirtilen ‘rekreasyon potansiyeline sahip olması’ ifadesinden yola çıkarak tabiat parklarının rekreasyon potansiyeli üzerine yapılan çalışmalar ulusal literatürde mevcuttur. Ancak bu çalışmanın materyali olan Karaahmetli Tabiat Parkı’nda böyle bir çalışma yapılmamıştır. Bu çalışma kapsamında, Karaahmetli Tabiat Parkı’nın rekreasyon potansiyeli Gülez yöntemi ile hesaplanmıştır. Çalışma yerinde gözlem, yetkililerle görüşme ve uzman görüşlerine dayalı olarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Doğal ve kültürel bileşenler (peyzaj değeri, iklim değeri, ulaşılabilirlik ve olumsuz etkiler) değerlendirilerek Karaahmetli Tabiat Parkı’nın %70 rekreasyon potansiyeline sahip olduğu saptanmıştır. Tabiat parklarının rekreasyonel potansiyelinin değerlendirilmesi doğa koruma ve kentsel planlama süreçlerinde ve rekreasyon ve turizm planlama süreçlerinde karar vermeye yardımcı olmaktadır. Ayrıca hangi ekosistem bileşenlerinin rekreasyon fırsatlarının sağlanmasına katkıda bulunduğuna odaklanan rekreasyonel ekosistem hizmetleri çalışmalarıyla entegre edilerek, doğal çevrenin açık hava rekreasyonunun faydalarına ve sonuçlarına nasıl katkıda bulunduğuna dair anlayışımızı geliştirebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bulut, M. B. B. (2023). Evaluation of the Recreation Potential of Karaahmetli Nature Park. GSI Journals Serie A: Advancements in Tourism Recreation and Sports Sciences, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1, 259–271. https://doi.org/10.53353/atrss.1230887

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (57)

  1. Altınöz, Ö., Tırıl, A. & Arslan, Ö. E. (2014). Hamsilos tabiat parkı’nın rekreasyon potansiyelini belirlemeye yönelik bir araştırma. Journal of Recreation and Tourism Research, 1 (1), 20-38. Erişim Adresi: https://jrtr.org/index.php/jrtr/article/view/102/101
  2. Aslan, F., Ateş, O. Büyükbayraktar, N. & Kabataş, E. (2021). Kırklareli Kavaklımeşe Korusu Tabiat Parkının rekreasyon potansiyelinin belirlenmesi. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 321-330. https://doi.org/10.17474/artvinofd.946339
  3. Birinci, S., Zaman, M. & Bulut, İ. (2016). Limni gölü tabiat parkının (Gümüşhane) rekreasyon potansiyeli. Journal of International Social Research, 9(46). Erişim Adresi: https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=73335961-109d-4554-8ac9-2613349327f8%40redis
  4. Boyd, S.W. & Butler, R.W. (1996). Managing ecotourism: an opportunity spectrum approach. Tourism Management, 17, 557–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(96)00076-3
  5. Buchwald, K., vd. (1973). Gutachten fur einen Landschaflsrahmenplan. Bodensee Baden Wiirttemberg. Ein Beitrag zur regionalen Entwicklung im Baden-Wurttembergischen Bodenseegebiet. Ministerium fur Ernaehrung Landwirtschat und Umwelt Baden Wurttemberg, Stuttgart, 206.
  6. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Hou, Y. & Müller, F. (2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand, and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019
  7. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S. & Müller, F. (2014). Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands concepts for spatial localisation, ındication and quantification. Landscape Online, 34:1-3. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201434
  8. Colson, V., Garcia, S., Rondeux, J. & Lejeune, P. (2010). Map and determinants of woodlands visiting in Wallonia. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.04.002
  9. Çavuş, A. & Aker, P. (2021). Turgut Özal Tabiat Parkı’nın Rekreasyon Potansiyelinin Belirlenmesi. Turizm Akademik Dergisi, 8(1), 193-212. Erişim Adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1308147
  10. Dal, İ. & Karayılmazlar, S. (2019). Balamba Tabiat Parkı Açık Hava Rekreasyon Potansiyelinin Değerlendirilmesi., Uygulamalı Bilimler Kongresi Kitabı, G. Gürçay & Manafidizaji, K. (eds.), Sivas, UBAK Publications, ISBN: 978-605-69046-7-7
  11. Dudley, N. (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Stolton, S., P. Shadie and N. Dudley (2013). IUCN WCPA Best Practice Guidance on Recognising Protected Areas and Assigning Management Categories and Governance Types, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 21, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. ISBN: 978-2-8317-1636-7
  12. Doğa Koruma ve Milli Parklar Genel Müdürlüğü, DKMPGM. (2022). Erişim adresi: https://bolge9.tarimorman.gov.tr/Menu/75/Kirikkale-Karaahmetli-Tabiat-Parki
  13. Edwards, D.M., Jay, M., Jensen, F.S., Lucas, B., Marzano, M., Montagné, C., Peace, A. & Weiss, G., 2012. Public preferences across Europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecology and Society, 17, 27. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04520-170127
  14. Eroğlan, K., Koşugen, P., & Göktuğ, T. H. (2022). Evaluation of Outdoor Recreational Potential of Şarlan Nature Park According to Gülez Method: Gülez Yöntemi’ne Göre Şarlan Tabiat Parkı’nın Açıkhava Rekreasyonel Potansiyelinin Değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Protected Areas Research, 1(2), 75-85. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385650
  15. Faggi, A., Breuste, J., Madanes, N., Gropper, C. & Perelman, P. (2011). Water as an appreciated feature in the landscape: a comparison of residents’ and visitors’ preferences in Buenos Aires. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.09.009
  16. Fisher, B., Turner, R. K. & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68, 643-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
  17. Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3(4), 390-394. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149
  18. Frumkin, H., Bratman, G. N., Breslow, S. J., Cochran, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., Lawler, J. J.,. & Wood, S. A. (2017). Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(7), 075001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1663
  19. Google Earth, (2022). Karaahmetli Tabiat Parkı 39°39'43"N, 33°27'07"E Erişim Adresi (02.12.2022): https://earth.google.com/web/search/karaahmetli+Tabiat+Park%c4%b1/@39.66200976,33.45201745,727.21703459a,2439.72009297d,35y,0h,0t,0r/data=CnIaSBJCCiUweDE0ZDRjNzgyYWNjMjhhMjc6MHhiMDZjNGM1ZmVhMTMxNzRlKhlLYXJhYWhtZXRsaSBUYWJpYXQgUGFya8SxGAIgASImCiQJaXG4vPsbDMARB-7KDrlxKsAZUHZwQJuASMAhoKbqYjrZUcA.
  20. Goossen, M. & Langers, F. (2000). Assessing quality of rural areas in the Netherlands: finding the mostimportant indicators for recreation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 46, 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00058-4
  21. Gül, A., Örücü, M.K., & Karaca, Ö. (2006). An approach for recreation suitability analysis to recreation planning in Gölcük Nature Park. Environmental Management, 37, 606–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0322-4
  22. Gülez, S. (1980). Doğu Karadeniz kıyı şeridinde rekreasyon potansiyelinin saptanması ve değerlendirilmesi. KTÜ Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1). 105-132.
  23. Gülez, S. (1990). Orman içi rekreasyon potansiyelinin saptanması için geliştirilen bir değerlendirme yöntemi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, Seri: A, 40 (2): 132–148. Erişim Adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/176298
  24. Gürsoy, D. & Chen, B.T. (2012). Factors influencing camping behavior: the case of Taiwan. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 21, 659–678. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2012.627239
  25. Hermes, J., Van Berkel, D., Burkhard, B., Plieninger, T., Fagerholm, N., von Haaren, C., & Albert, C. (2018). Assessment and valuation of recreational ecosystem services of landscapes. Ecosystem Services,31, 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.04.011
  26. Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T. & Bieling, C. (2013). An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators, 29, 434–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013
  27. Kaptan Ayhan, Ç. (2019). Ayazmapınarı Tabiat Parkı’nın (Bayramiç, Çanakkale) Rekreasyonel Potansiyelinin Belirlenmesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Çomü Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 7 (1): 219–228. https://doi.org/10.33202/comuagri.569906
  28. Kandziora, M., Burkhard, B. & Müller, F. (2013). Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators—a theoretical matrix exercise. Ecol. Ind. 28, 54–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.006
  29. Kalinauskas, M., Bogdzevič, K., Gomes, E., Inácio, M., Barcelo, D., Zhao, W. & Pereira, P. (2023). Mapping and assessment of recreational cultural ecosystem services supply and demand in Vilnius (Lithuania). Science of the Total Environment, 855, 158590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158590
  30. Karaahmetli Tabiat Parkı Uzun Devreli Gelişme Planı, UDGP, (2009). Plan Raporu. Belda LTD. Ankara. Kiemstedt, H. (1967). Zur bevverlung der landschaft fur die erholung. Evaluation zur landespflege. Sonderheft; 1, Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart.
  31. Kırıkkale Valiliği (2022). Karaahmetli Tabiat Parkı. Kırıkkale. Erişim adresi (18.12.2022): http://www.kirikkale.gov.tr/karaahmetli-tabiat-parki
  32. La Rosa, D., Spyra, M. & Inostroza, L. (2016). Indicators of cultural ecosystem services for urban planning: a review. Ecological Indicators, 61, 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.028
  33. Makovníková, J., Pálka, B., Kolosta, S. & Orságová, K. (2021). Application of matrix approach for evaluation and assessment the potential of recreational ecosystem service in model regions in Slovakia. Open Journal of Ecology, 11, 437-450. https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2021.114028
  34. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, MEA, (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Erişim Adresi (19.12.2022): https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf
  35. Milli Parklar Kanunu. (1983,11 08). T.C. Resmî Gazete (Sayı:18132). Başbakanlık Basımevi, Ankara. Erişim Adresi (20.12.2022): https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2873.pdf
  36. Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü, MGM, (2022). Kırıkkale-Bahşili İçin Detaylı Hava Durumu. Erişim Adresi (19.12.2022): https://www.mgm.gov.tr/tahmin/il-veilceler.aspx?il=K%C4%B1r%C4%B1kkale&ilce=Bah%C5%9Fili
  37. Morse, W. C., Stern, M., Blahna, D. & Stein, T. (2022). Recreation as a transformative experience: Synthesizing the literature on outdoor recreation and recreation ecosystem services into a systems framework. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 38, 100492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2022.100492
  38. Nahuelhual, L., Carmona, A., Lozada, P., Jaramillo, A. & Aguayo, M. (2013). Mapping recreation and ecotourism as a cultural ecosystem service: an application at the local level in Southern Chile. Applied Geography, 40, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.12.004
  39. Nigussie, S., Liu, L., & Yeshitela, K. (2021). Indicator development for assessing recreational ecosystem service capacity of urban green spaces– a participatory approach. Ecological Indicators, 121, 107026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107026
  40. Özçalık, M. & Kumru, S.N. (2019). Kapiçam tabiat parkı’nın gülez yöntemine göre rekreasyon potansiyelinin belirlenmesi. Turkish Journal of Forest Science, 3(2): 129-141. https://doi.org/10.32328/turkjforsci.585169
  41. Paracchini, M. L., Zulian, G., Kopperoinen, L., Maes, J., Schägner, J. P., Termansen, M.,. & Bidoglio, G. (2014). Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecological Indicators, 45, 371-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.018
  42. Pena, L., Casado-Arzuaga, I. & Onaindia, M. (2015). Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach. Ecosystem Services, 13, 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.008
  43. Pekünlü, S., Sezen, I. & Özer, S. (2020). Limni Gölü Tabiat Parkının Rekreasyon Potansiyelinin Gülez Yöntemine Göre Değerlendirilmesi. M. Y. Alptekin (Ed.) Sosyal Bilimlerde 2020 Gündemi Türkiye ve Doğu Karadeniz, pp. 253- 264, Trabzon: Serander Yayınları.
  44. Polat, S. & Polat, S. A. (2016). Rekreasyonel Tabiat Parklarının Korunan Alanlar Kapsamında İncelenmesi: Mersin İli Örneği. Social Sciences, 11(2), 85-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.12739/NWSA.2016.11.2.3C0139
  45. Rice, W. L., Newman, P., Taff, B. D., Zipp, K. Y., & Miller, Z. D. (2020). Recreation benefits: Towards a recreational ecosystems interpretative framework. Landscape Research, 45(7), 892–904. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2020.1777956
  46. Rüzgâr, A., Koçak, H. & Demir, M. (2022). Malatya İli Turgut Özal Tabiat Parkının Rekreasyon Potansiyelinin Belirlenmesi. Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications, 7(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.972817
  47. Roovers, P., Hermy, M., & Hubert, G. (2002). Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanisation in central Belgium. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00011-7
  48. Sökmen, E. D., & Yener, Ş. D. (2022). Bentler Tabiat Parkı'nın Rekreasyon Potansiyelini Değerlendirmeye Yönelik Bir Çalışma. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13(2), 176-188. https://doi.org/10.29048/makufebed.1103500
  49. Scopelliti, M., Carrus, G., Adinolfi, C., Suarez, G., Colangelo, G., Lafortezza, R. & Sanesi, G. (2016). Staying in touch with nature and well-being in different socioeconomic classes: the experience of Bogotá. Landscape Urban Plannning, 148, 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.002
  50. Tülek, B. (2021). Determination of recreation potential with using Gülez Method in Çankırı Kadınçayırı Natural Park example. ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 5(1), 227-234. https://doi.org/10.46291/ISPECJASvol5iss1pp227-234
  51. Weyland, F. & Laterra, P. (2014). Recreation potential assessment at large spatial scales: A method based in the ecosystem services approach and landscape metrics. Ecological Indicators, 39, 34-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.023
  52. Wolsko, C., Lindberg, K., & Reese, R. (2019). Nature-based physical recreation leads to psychological well-being: Evidence from five studies. Ecopsychology, 11(4), 222-235. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2018.0076
  53. Yeşil, P. & Hacıoğlu, V. (2018). Limni Gölü Tabiat Parkı peyzaj değerlerinin rekreasyonel açıdan değerlendirilmesi. Türk Tarım-Gıda Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 6(6), 680-688. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v6i6.680-688.1568
  54. Yeşil, M. & Güzel, M. (2021). Ordu ili Asarkaya Kent Ormanı ve Yoroz Kent Ormanı ile Çınarsuyu Tabiat Parkı ve Ulugöl Tabiat Parkı'nın rekreasyonel potansiyel yönünden karşılaştırılması. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(3), 975-987. https://doi.org/10.17714/gumusfenbil.860626
  55. Frumkin, H., Bratman, G. N., Breslow, S. J., Cochran, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., Lawler, J. J.,. & Wood, S. A. (2017). Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(7), 075001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1663
  56. Hermes, J., Van Berkel, D., Burkhard, B., Plieninger, T., Fagerholm, N., von Haaren, C., & Albert, C. (2018). Assessment and valuation of recreational ecosystem services of landscapes. Ecosystem Services,31, 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.04.011
  57. Paracchini, M. L., Zulian, G., Kopperoinen, L., Maes, J., Schägner, J. P., Termansen, M.,. & Bidoglio, G. (2014). Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecological Indicators, 45, 371-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.018