SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkiye Peyzaj Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1

Assessing The Recreational Value Of Gedikli Village In The Context Of Cultural Ecosystem Services

Kültürel Ekosistem Hizmetleri Bağlamında Gedikli Köyü’nün Rekreasyon Değerinin Belirlenmesi

Yasin Kültigin Yaman(SAKARYA UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ, PEYZAJ MİMARLIĞI BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-2200-8738
Seda Örücü(Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi)0000-0003-1592-5180
Pages
66–75
Publication Date
2025-07-31
🏛️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)

The findings revealed that riversides, natural open spaces, and upland areas were prominent recreational sites, and significant relationships were identified between spatial preferences and socio-demographic factors.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to evaluate the perceptions of the rural population regarding cultural ecosystem services and the associated recreational preferences in Gedikli Village, located in the Şarkikaraağaç district of Isparta, Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Based on a participatory approach, data obtained from surveys conducted with 64 individuals were analyzed both statistically and spatially.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings revealed that riversides, natural open spaces, and upland areas were prominent recreational sites, and significant relationships were identified between spatial preferences and socio-demographic factors.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kültürel ekosistem hizmetleri · Rekreasyon · Katılımcı Yaklaşım

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the perceptions of the rural population regarding cultural ecosystem services and the associated recreational preferences in Gedikli Village, located in the Şarkikaraağaç district of Isparta, Turkey. Based on a participatory approach, data obtained from surveys conducted with 64 individuals were analyzed both statistically and spatially. The areas to which participants attributed recreational value were analyzed in a Geographic Information System (GIS) environment using density analysis. Additionally, chi-square and one-way ANOVA tests were conducted using SPSS to assess the influence of demographic variables, including gender, age, and education level, on recreational preferences. The findings revealed that riversides, natural open spaces, and upland areas were prominent recreational sites, and significant relationships were identified between spatial preferences and socio-demographic factors. In this respect, the study provides an applied contribution to the identification of cultural ecosystem services in rural settlements using participatory approaches and methods, and to their integration into planning processes through data-based analyses.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Isparta ili Şarkikaraağaç ilçesine bağlı Gedikli Köyü’nde kırsal halkın kültürel ekosistem hizmetlerine dair algılarını ve buna bağlı rekreasyonel tercihlerini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Katılımcı yaklaşıma dayalı olarak geliştirilen bu araştırmada, 64 kişiye uygulanan anketten elde edilen veriler, istatistiksel ve mekânsal olarak analiz edilmiştir. Katılımcıların rekreasyonel değer atfettiği alanlar Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS) ortamında yoğunluk analizine tabi tutularak mekânsal olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca SPSS yazılımı kullanılarak yapılan chi square (ki-kare) ve tek yönlü ANOVA testleri aracılığıyla, cinsiyet, yaş ve eğitim düzeyi gibi demografik değişkenlerin rekreasyonel tercihler üzerindeki etkisi belirlenmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları, su kenarları, doğal açıklık alanlar ve yaylaların öne çıkan rekreasyonel alanlar olduğunu ortaya koymuş; mekânsal tercihler ile sosyo-demografik faktörler arasında anlamlı ilişkiler tespit edilmiştir. Bu yönüyle çalışma, kırsal yerleşimlerde kültürel ekosistem hizmetlerinin katılımcı yaklaşım ve yöntemler kullanılarak belirlenmesine ve planlama süreçlerine veri tabanlı analizler yardımıyla entegre edilmesine yönelik uygulamalı bir katkı sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yaman, Y. K., Örücü, S. (2025). Assessing The Recreational Value Of Gedikli Village In The Context Of Cultural Ecosystem Services. Türkiye Peyzaj Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 66–75. https://doi.org/10.51552/peyad.1711145

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Arnaiz-Schmitz, C., Herrero-Jáuregui, C., Schmitz, M. F., & Pineda, F. D. (2021). Integrating landscape connectivity into the assessment of ecosystem services to support landscape planning. Land, 10(3), 343. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10030343
  2. Bieling, C., Plieninger, T., Pirker, H., & Vogl, C. R. (2014). Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecological Economics, 105, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.013
  3. Brown, G., & Fagerholm, N. (2015). Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation. Ecosystem Services, 13, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007
  4. Brown, G., Schebella, M. F., & Weber, D. (2014). Using participatory GIS to measure physical activity and urban park benefits. Landscape and Urban Planning, 121, 34-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.006
  5. Chan, K. M., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
  6. Fagerholm, N., & Käyhkö, N. (2009). Participatory mapping and geographical patterns of the social landscape values of rural communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Fennia, 187(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.11143/8603
  7. Fagerholm, N., Käyhkö, N., Ndumbaro, F., & Khamis, M. (2012). Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments—Mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecological Indicators, 18, 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.004
  8. Hausmann, A., Slotow, R., & Di Minin, E. (2016). Conserving the wilderness experience in the face of expanding nature-based tourism. Conservation Biology, 30(5), 874–883. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12677
  9. Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Nieto, A. P., Martín-López, B., Aguilera, P. A., Montes, C., & López-Santiago, C. (2014). Spatial mismatches between cultural ecosystem services and biodiversity: A methodological proposal. Land, 3(3), 566–586. https://doi.org/10.3390/land3030566
  10. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press. Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2015). Assessing ecosystem services with stakeholders’ perceptions and expectations. Ecosystem Services, 16, 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.06.007
  11. Raymond, C. M., Bryan, B. A., MacDonald, D. H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., & Kalivas, T. (2010). Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1301–1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006
  12. Riechers, M., Barkmann, J., & Tscharntke, T. (2020). Diverging perceptions by social groups on cultural ecosystem services provided by urban green. Land, 9(7), 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9070244
  13. Scholte, S. S. K., van Teeffelen, A. J. A., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecological Economics, 114, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007
  14. TEEB. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan.
  15. Ting, M., Chan, J. C. L., & Huang, Z. (2018). Exploring regional variations of cultural ecosystem service perceptions using social media data in Hong Kong. Sustainability, 10(11), 4006. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114006
  16. Van Berkel, D. B., & Verburg, P. H. (2014). Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecological Indicators, 37, 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.025