SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Coğrafya Dergisi / 2021 / Sayı: 43

Sustainable Development in Mountainous Areas: Relimitation of Mountain Areas in Giresun Province and A Socio-Economic Analysis

Dağlık Alanlarda Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma: Giresun İli Dağlık Alanlarının Sınırlandırılması ve Sosyo-Ekonomik Özellikleriyle Analizi

Yusuf Kızılkan(Ataturk University, Faculty of Letters, Department of Geography, Erzurum, Turkey)0000-0001-9815-8129
Saliha Koday(Ataturk University, Faculty of Letters, Department of Geography, Erzurum, Turkey)0000-0003-2515-4287
Pages
1–18
Publication Date
2022-01-06
🏛️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 diversity of aspects that affect the sustainability of mountainous areas is explained with practical examples.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The integration of sustainability to the concept of development and the sustainable development goals set by the United Nations added another dimension to the relationship between human and environment.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The Brundtland Report and Agenda 21 report published in 1987 and 1992, respectively, diversified the mountainous area approaches and they have become a research subject for sustainability research.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The diversity of aspects that affect the sustainability of mountainous areas is explained with practical examples.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Dağlık Alanlar · Sosyo-Ekonomik Analiz · Giresun İli

Abstract

The integration of sustainability to the concept of development and the sustainable development goals set by the United Nations added another dimension to the relationship between human and environment. The Brundtland Report and Agenda 21 report published in 1987 and 1992, respectively, diversified the mountainous area approaches and they have become a research subject for sustainability research. Studying developmental aspects of sustainability approaches towards mountainous areas and determining their limits have posed challenges since the beginning. Recently, these impediments are overcome by various Geographic Information Systems and criteria for mountainous area relimitations based on environmental and topographic characteristics. However, socio-economic assessments for the mountainous area relimitations are yet to be performed. This article highlights the importance of international and national scale in, several relimitation projects and analysis of Giresun’s mountainous areas focusing on topographical and the socioeconomic characteristics. A three-step approach has been adopted for socio-economic analysis of mountainous areas. The first step is the introduction of the physical integrity of the mountainous areas and the natural environmental conditions. The second is to determine the boundaries of mountainous areas and zones affected by mountainous areas in social and economic terms by adhering to natural conditions. Third, the socio-economic analysis of the mountainous areas in Giresun Province through 11 criteria. An assessment proposal based on socio-economic characteristics regarding human-nature interactions in mountainous areas has been presented, as well. The diversity of aspects that affect the sustainability of mountainous areas is explained with practical examples.

Özet

Kalkınma kavramına sürdürülebilirliğin dahil edilmesi ve Birleşmiş Milletler tarafından belirlenen sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedefleri ile insan ve çevre ilişkisi ayrı bir boyut kazanmıştır. 1987’de Brundtland Raporu ve 1992 yılında yayınlanan Gündem 21 raporu ile dağlık alan yaklaşımları çeşitlenmiş ve bu alanlar sürdürülebilirlik yönüyle çalışılmaya başlanmıştır. Sürdürülebilirlik yaklaşımlarının dağlık alanlardaki kalkınma yönlerinin incelenmesi ve dağlık alanların sınırlarının belirlenmesi geçmişten günümüze zorluklarla karşı karşıyadır. Bu zorluklar günümüzde çeşitli Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri ve çevre özellikleriyle topografik niteliklere bağlı dağlık alan sınırlamalarına yönelik kriterlerle aşılmaktadır. Ancak oluşturulan dağlık alan sınırlamalarında sosyo-ekonomik özellikler açısından değerlendirmelerde bulunulmamıştır. Bu makale uluslararası ve ulusal ölçekte dağlık alanların önemini ve çeşitli sınırlama çalışmalarını vurgulayarak, Türkiye’de yapılacak olan topografik özellikler temelinde, Sosyo-Ekonomik niteliklere bağlı dağlık alan analizini içermektedir. Bu kapsamda dağlık alanlarda sosyo-ekonomik analiz için üç aşamalı yaklaşım benimsenmiştir; birincisi dağlık alanların fiziki bütünlükleri ve doğal çevre şartlarına yönelik tanıtımdır; ikincisi doğal şartlara bağlı kalarak sosyal ve ekonomik anlamda dağlık alan sınırlarının ve dağlık alanlardan etkilenen zonların belirlenmesidir; üçüncüsü ise Giresun İli dağlık alanlarının 11 kritere göre sosyo-ekonomik açıdan analizidir. Bu bağlamda araştırmada insan ve çevre ilişkisi içinde dağlık alanlarda sosyo-ekonomik özelliklere bağlı değerlendirme önerisi sunulmuş, dağlık alanların sürdürülebilirliğine etki edecek yönlerin çeşitliliği uygulamalı örnekleriyle açıklanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kızılkan, Y., Koday, S. (2022). Sustainable Development in Mountainous Areas: Relimitation of Mountain Areas in Giresun Province and A Socio-Economic Analysis. Coğrafya Dergisi, Sayı: 43, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2021-850275

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (74)

  1. Akten, S., and Gül, A. (2014). Korunan Doğal Alanlarda Ziyaretçilerin Olası Etki Düzeyleri Önlem Ve Standartların Belirlenmesi (Gölcük Tabiat Parkı Örneği). Türkiye Ormancılık Dergisi, 15(2), 130-139. google scholar
  2. Bayar, R., and Karabacak, K. (2020). Determination of human impact on land cover: The case of Ankara Province. Cografya Dergisi. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2019-0043 google scholar
  3. Bekdemir, Ü., and Sezer, İ. (2016). Giresun İlinin Turizm Potansiyeli. Ankara: Nobel Bilimsel Eserler, Nobel Yayıncılık. google scholar
  4. Birinci, S. Kaymaz, Ç.K. and Camcı, A. (2017). Harran County Seat and Traditional Dome Residencies in Terms of Culture Tourism (Şanliurfa)”, Turkish Studies-International Periodical for the Lan-guages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 12(3), 93-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.11289 google scholar
  5. Blyth, S. (2002). Mountain Watch: Environmental Change Sustainable Developmental in Mountains (No. 12). UNEP/Earthprint. google scholar
  6. Botkin, J. W., Elmandjra, M., and Malitza, M. (1979). No Limits to Learn-ing: Bridging the Human Gap: The Report to The Club of Rome. google scholar
  7. Dal, N., and Gönençgil, B. (2018). Türkiye’de Dağ ve Dağlık Alan Sınırlandırması için Bir Yaklaşım, TÜCAUM 30. Yıl Uluslararası Coğrafya Sempozyumu, Bildiriler Kitabı, 907-913. google scholar
  8. Dax, T. (2005). The redefinition of Europe’s Less Favoured Areas. 3rd Annual Conference - Rural Development in Europe Funding Europe-an RuralDevelopment in 2007-2013,15-16November 2005, London google scholar
  9. Debarbieux, B., Price, M. F., and Balsiger, J. (2015). The institutional-ization of mountain regions in Europe. Regional Studies, 49(7), 1193-1207. google scholar
  10. Elibüyük, M., and Yılmaz, E. (2010). Türkiye’nin Coğrafi Bölge ve Bölümlerine Göre Yükselti Basamakları ve Eğim Grupları (Altitude Steps and Slope Groups of Turkey in Comparison with Geographi-cal Regions and Sub-Regions). Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Geographical Sciences, 8(1), 27-55. google scholar
  11. Erol, O. (1992). 1/1.000.000 scale Geomorphological map of Turkey. Ankara: MTA. google scholar
  12. Espon (The European Observation Network for Territorial Develop-ment and Cohesion) and University of Geneva (2012). Geographi-cal Specificities and Development Potentials in Europe: Final Scientific Report. google scholar
  13. European Commission (2004). Mountain Areas in Europe: Analysis of Mountain Areas in EU member States, Acceding and other Europe-an Countries. Nordregio Report 2004: 1, Report to the Director-ate-General for Regional Development, European Commission. Stockholm: Nordregio. google scholar
  14. Fisunoğlu, M. (1997). Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma ve Ekonomi. Sürdürülebilir Kalkınmanın Uygulanması Tartışma Toplantısı 11-12 Aralık 1997, Ankara: Türkiye Çevre Vakfı Yayın, (126), 13-26. google scholar
  15. Funnell, D. C. and Price, M. F. (2003). Mountain geography: A review. Geographical Journal, 169(3), 183-190. google scholar
  16. Giresun İli Doğa Turizmi Master Planı (2013-2023). (2013). T.C. Orman ve Su İşleri Bakanlığı 12. Bölge Müdürlüğü Giresun Şube Müdürlüğü. Giresun. google scholar
  17. Giresun Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry, 2018. google scholar
  18. Giresun Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry, 2019. google scholar
  19. Godde, P. M., Price, M. F. and Zimmermann, F. M. (Ed.). (2000). Tour-ism and Development in Mountain Regions. USA: Cabi Publishing google scholar
  20. Gönençgil B. (1999). “Dağlık Alanların Sürdürülebilir Kullanımı İçin Dağ Alanları Yönetimi (DAY) ve Planlaması”, Türkiye’de Çevre Kirlenmesi Öncelikleri Sempozyumu III, 18-19 Kasım 1999, Kocaeli google scholar
  21. Gönençgil, B. (2009). Küresel Degredasyon Sürecinde Dağlar ve Dağ Alanları Yönetimi. İstanbul: Çantay Kitabevi. google scholar
  22. Gürgen, G. (1997). Şebinkarahisar-Alucra Çevresinde Volkanik Şekiller. Ankara Üniversitesi Türkiye Coğrafyası Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, 6, 149-161. google scholar
  23. Hoşgören, M. Y. (2011). Jeomorfoloji Terimleri Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Çan-tay Yayınevi. google scholar
  24. Huddleston, B., Ataman, E., and Fe d’Ostiani, L. (2003). Towards a GIS-based Analysis of Mountain Environments and Populations. Environment and Natural Resources Working Paper 10. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. google scholar
  25. Hulse, J. H. (2007). Sustainable Development at Risk: Ignoring the Past. International Development Research Centre, Cambridge Uni-versity Press. India google scholar
  26. Jia, Y., Tang, X., and Liu, W. (2020). Spatial-Temporal Evolution and Correlation Analysis of Ecosystem Service Value and Landscape Ecological Risk in Wuhu City. Sustainability, 12(7), 2803. google scholar
  27. Kang, S., Lee, S. R., and Cho, S. E. (2020). Slope Stability Analysis of Unsaturated Soil Slopes Based on the Site-Specific Characteristics: A Case Study of Hwangryeong Mountain, Busan, Korea. Sustain-ability, 12(7), 2839. google scholar
  28. Kapos, V., Rhind, J., Edwards, M., Price, M. F., and Ravilious, C. (2000). Developing A Map of The World’s Mountain Forests. Forests in Sustain-able Mountain Development: A State of Knowledge Report For 2000. Task Force on Forests in Sustainable Mountain Development, 4-19. google scholar
  29. Keçer, M. (1993). 1 / 25.000 Scale Geomorphological Map of Giresun Province google scholar
  30. Koday, S., Kaymaz, H., and Kaya, G. (2018). Kuzalan Tabiat Parki’nin Doğa Turizm Potansiyeli (Dereli-Giresun). Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, 37, 124-143. google scholar
  31. Koday, S., Koday, Z. and Kızılkan, Y. (2017). Siirt Ilinde Bir Mesken Kültürü: Cas Evleri. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 21(4), 1369-1385. google scholar
  32. Kohler, T., Hurni, H., Wiesmann, U., and Klay, A. (2004). Mountain infrastructure: access, communication, and energy. in Martin F. Price, Libor F. Jansky, and Andrei A. Iatsenia Key Issues for Moun-tain Areas (pp. 38-62). New York: United Nations University Press. google scholar
  33. Kohler, T., Pratt, J., Debarbieux. B., Balsiger, J., Rudaz G., Maselli D., (eds) 2012. From Rio 1992 to Rio 2012 and beyond. Final Draft for Rio 2012. Sustainable Mountain Development, Green Economy and Institutions. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC); Centre for Development and Environment (CDE) University of Bern. google scholar
  34. Körner, C. (2003). Alpine Plant Life: Functional Plant Ecology of High Mountain Ecosystems. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer. google scholar
  35. Li, J. T., Liu, Y. S., and Yang, Y. Y. (2018). Land use change and effect analysis of tideland reclamation in Hangzhou Bay. Journal of Mountain Science, 15(2), 394-405. google scholar
  36. Li, Y. J., Yu, H., Chen, T., Hu, J., and Cui, H. Y. (2016). Livelihood changes and evolution of upland ethnic communities driven by tour-ism: a case study in Guizhou Province, southwest China. Journal of Mountain Science, 13(7), 1313-1332. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11629-015-3631-6 google scholar
  37. Löve, D. (1970). Subarctic and subalpine: Where and what?. Arctic and Alpine Research, 2, 63-73. google scholar
  38. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. H., Randers, J., and Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A Report To The Club of Rome, 1-9. google scholar
  39. Messerli, B. (2012). Global Change and The World’s Mountains. Moun-tain Research and Development, 32(1), 55-63. google scholar
  40. Messerli, B., and Besubaum, E. (2004). The role of culture, education and science for sustainable mountain development,n Martin F. Price, Li-bor F. Jansky & Andrei A. Iatsenia (Eds.) Key Issues for Mountain Areas (pp. 210-234). New York: United Nations University Press google scholar
  41. Meybeck, M., Green, P., and Vörösmarty, C. (2001). A New Typology for Mountains and Other Relief Classes. Mountain Research and Development, 21 (1), 34-46. google scholar
  42. Mountain Agenda. (2002). Mountains of the World. Sustainable Devel-opment in Mountain Areas, The Need for Adequate Policies and Instruments. Switzerland: Centre for Development and Environ-ment, University of Berne. google scholar
  43. Peattie, R. (1936). Mountain Geography: A Critique and Field Study. Harvard, Cambridge MA. google scholar
  44. Peng, J., Hu, X., Qiu, S., Meersmans, J., and Liu, Y. (2019). Multifunc-tional landscapes identification and associated development zoning in mountainous area. Science of The Total Environment, 660, 765775. google scholar
  45. Planhol, X. D., and Bilgin, T. (1961). Karagöl Kütlesi Üzerinde Pleistosen ve Aktüel Glasiyasyon ile Periglasyal Topoğrafya Şekilleri. İst. Üniv. Coğ. Enst. Der, 6(12), 127-146. google scholar
  46. Price M.F., and Butt, N. (2000). Forests in Sustainable Mountain Devel-opment: A Report for 2000. Wallingford: CAB International google scholar
  47. Price M.F., Arnesen T., Gİ0ersen E., and Metzger, M. J. (2018). Map-ping mountain areas: learning from Global, European and Norwe-gian perspectives. Journal of Mountain Science, 16(1). https://doi. org/10.1007/s11629-018-4916-3 google scholar
  48. Price, M. (2004). Introduction: Sustainable Mountain Development from Rio To Bishkek And Beyond. Key İssues For Mountain Areas, United Nations University, New York, 1-17. google scholar
  49. Price, M. F. (2013). Mountain Geography: Physical and Human Di-mensions. University of California Press. google scholar
  50. Price, M. F., and Kohler T. (2013). Sustainable Mountain Development in Alton C. Byers, Donald A. Friend, Thomas Kohler & Larry W. Price. (Eds.) Mountain Geography: Physical and Human Dimen-sions. (pp. 333-363). Univ of California Press. google scholar
  51. Provincial Directorate of National Education, 2018 google scholar
  52. Provincial Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks google scholar
  53. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, D., and Bomhard, B. (2012). Mapping direct hu-man influence on the world’s mountain areas. Mountain Research and Development, 32(2), 197-202. google scholar
  54. Sati, V. P. (2005). Natural resource conditions and economic develop-ment in the Uttaranchal Himalaya, India. Journal of Mountain Sci-ence, 2(4), 336-350. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02918407 google scholar
  55. Sayre, R., Frye, C., Karagulle, D., Krauer, J., Breyer, S., Aniello, P.,. and VanSistine, D. P. (2018). A new high-resolution map of world mountains and an online tool for visualizing and comparing charac-terizations of global mountain distributions. Mountain Research and Development, 38(3), 240-249. google scholar
  56. Soffer, A. (1982). Mountain Geography: A New Approach. Mountain Research and Development, 2(4), 391-398. google scholar
  57. Somuncu, M. (2002). “2002 Dünya Dağlar Yılında Dünyada ve Türkiye’de Dağ Turizmi”. TC Turizm Bakanlığı II. Turizm Şurası Bildirileri, I. Cilt, 185-192. google scholar
  58. Somuncu, M. (2006). Achieving universal primary education in moun-tains. Mountain Research and Development, 26(1), 20-23. google scholar
  59. UNCED (1972). Declaration of the United Nations conference on the human environment (Stockholm Declaration) A/CONF.48/14/ REV.1 - Report of the United Nations Conference on Human Envi-ronment. Stockholm google scholar
  60. UNCED. (1992). Agenda 21. UN Doc. A/CONF. 151/26 (Vol. I-II-II), 13 August. Washington D.C.: United Nations. google scholar
  61. Uzun, A. (2014). Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Kapsamında Madra Dağı’nın Doğal ve Beşerî Kaynaklarının Değerlendirilmesi. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi. google scholar
  62. Uzun, A., and Somuncu, M. (2013). Madra Dağı ve Çevresinin Arazi Örtüsü/Kullanımındaki Zamansal Değişimin Uzaktan Algılama Yöntemi ile Değerlendirilmesi. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(30), 1-21. google scholar
  63. Uzun, A., Zeybek, H., and Demirağ, İ. (2012). Sariçiçek Dağı’nda Dol-in Topoğrafyası (Giresun/ Türkiye), UJES 2012, III. Ulusal Jeomorfoloji Sempozyumu, Hatay. google scholar
  64. Uzun, A., Zeybek, H., and Hatipoğlu, İ. K. (2012). Bazaltik Aglomer-alar Üzerinde Tor Oluşumu, Giresun, UJES 2012, III. Ulusal Jeomorfoloji Sempozyumu, Hatay. google scholar
  65. Veith, C., and Shaw, J. (2011). Why İnvest in Sustainable Mountain De-velopment? Rome: Fao Publishg. google scholar
  66. Warren, P. (2002). Livelihoods Diversification and Enterprise Develop-ment. An Initial Exploration of Concepts and Issues. Livelihood Support Program (LSP) Working Paper, Italy. google scholar
  67. WCED (1987). Our Common Future, Brundtland Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Published as An-nex to General Assembly document A/42/427. google scholar
  68. Wymann von Dach, S., Bachmann, F., Borsdorf, A., Kohler, T., Jurek, M. and Sharma, E., eds. (2016). Investing in Sustainable Mountain Development: Opportunities, Resources and Benefits. Centre for Development and Environment (CDE) Switzerland: Bern Open Publishing. google scholar
  69. Zaman, M. (2017). Türkiye’de Kırsal Meskenler ve Coğrafi Dağılışları. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 21(3), 911935. google scholar
  70. International Union for Conservation of Nature. (No date). About Pro-tect Areas Retrieved form https://www.iucn.org/ Last update: 28.04.2021 google scholar
  71. International Center for Integrated Mountain Development. (No date). About Mountain Development Retrieved form https://www.icimod. org/ Last update: 28.04.2021 google scholar
  72. Mountain Partnership (No date). About Mountain Development Re-trieved form http://www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ Last up-date: 28.04.2021 google scholar
  73. Mountain Forum (No date). About Mountain Conservation and Devel-opment Retrieved form http://www.fao.org/3/w9300e/w9300e04. htm Last update: 28.04.2021 google scholar
  74. Sayre, R., Frye, C., Karagulle, D., Krauer, J., Breyer, S., Aniello, P.,. and VanSistine, D. P. (2018). A new high-resolution map of world mountains and an online tool for visualizing and comparing charac-terizations of global mountain distributions. Mountain Research and Development, 38(3), 240-249. google scholar