SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkiye Ormancılık Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 18 Sayı: 1

A tool in determination of rural tourism alternatives: The ecosystem services approach

Kırsal turizm türlerinin belirlenmesinde bir araç: Ekosistem hizmetleri yaklaşımı

E. Seda Arslan Muhacir
İlkden TAZEBAY
Pages
74–81
Publication Date
2017-02-27
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Based on the findings, “thermal tourism” has been proposed as the most suitable tourism type for the study area under ecosystem services based decision support tools.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study is conducted in Ankara-Haymana County and based on linking ecosystem service benefits with rural tourism types.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It aims to identify and prioritize ecosystem services and propose the suitable rural tourism type for the area by means of associating the benefits of these services with rural tourism types.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on the findings, “thermal tourism” has been proposed as the most suitable tourism type for the study area under ecosystem services based decision support tools.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ekosistem hizmetleri · Kırsal turizm · Analitik hiyerarşi süreci

Abstract

This study is conducted in Ankara-Haymana County and based on linking ecosystem service benefits with rural tourism types. It aims to identify and prioritize ecosystem services and propose the suitable rural tourism type for the area by means of associating the benefits of these services with rural tourism types. For this purpose, the combination of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model and Fuzzy set technique is used. Selected ecosystem services -food, fresh water, biochemical natural medicines and pharmaceuticals, biological materials, pest regulation, natural hazard regulation, pollination, erosion regulation, aesthetic values, recreation and ecotourism, knowledge systems and educational values are associated with selected rural tourism options -agricultural, thermal and cultural tourism. Based on the findings, “thermal tourism” has been proposed as the most suitable tourism type for the study area under ecosystem services based decision support tools.

Özet

Ankara-Haymana İlçesi örneğinde gerçekleştirilen bu çalışmada ekosistem hizmetleri kırsal turizm türleri ile birlikte ele alınmıştır. Bu çalışmada amaçlanan ekosistem hizmetlerinin tanımlanması ve önceliklendirilmesi ile çalışma alanında ekosistem hizmetlerine dayalı en uygun kırsal turizm türünün belirlenmesidir. Bu amaçla analitik hiyerarşi süreci (AHS) ve Fuzzy set tekniklerinin birleşiminden oluşan bir model kullanılmıştır. Belirlenen ekosistem hizmetleri (gıda, tatlı su, biyokimyasal ve tıbbi ürünler, biyolojik hammadde, zararlı kontrolü, doğal afet kontrolü, polenleme, erozyon kontrolü, estetik değerler, rekreasyon ve eko turizm, bilgi sistemi, eğitim değeri) ile kırsal turizm türleri (tarımsal, termal ve kültürel turizm) ilişkilendirilerek ekosistem hizmetleri kapsamında en uygun kırsal turizm türü olarak termal turizm belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Muhacir, E. S. A., TAZEBAY, İ. (2017). A tool in determination of rural tourism alternatives: The ecosystem services approach. Türkiye Ormancılık Dergisi, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 1, 74–81. https://ajindex.com/articles/914627

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. AKA, 2015. İstatistiklerle Ankara 2015. Ankara Kalkınma Ajansı, 240, Ankara.
  2. Akpınar, N., 1995. Madencilik Sonrası Alan Kullanım Alternatiflerinin Değerlendirilmesinde Fuzzy Set Tekniğinden Yararlanma Olanakları Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları, 38, Ankara.
  3. Albayrak, İ., 2012. Ekosistem servislerine dayalı havza yönetim modelinin İstanbul- Ömerli havzası örneğinde uygulanabilirliği. Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi,
  4. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  5. Aleksieva, J., Stamov, St., 2005. Specialized Tourism Types. Rural tourism. Part II. Publishing, House Kota, Stara Zagora. Anık, Z., 2007. Nesne yönelimli yazılım dillerinin analitik hiyerarşi ve analitik network prosesi ile karşılaştırılması ve değerlendirilmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi,
  6. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  7. Barkauskas, V., Barkauskine, K., Jasinskas, E., 2015. Analysis of macro environmental factors influencing the development of rural tourism: Lithuanian case. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213: 167-172.
  8. Boyd, J., Banzhaf, S., 2007. What are ecosystem services? They need for standardized environmental accounting units. Journal of Ecological Economics, 63: 616-626.
  9. Costanza, R., Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hanhon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruleo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., 1997. The value of the world ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253-260.
  10. Comino, E., Bottero, M., Pomarico, S., Rosso, M., 2014. Exploring the environmental value of ecosystem services for a riverbasin through a spatial multicriteria analysis. Land Use Policy, 36: 381-395.
  11. Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Journal of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7: 21-28.
  12. De Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3): 260–272. HB, 2016.
  13. Haymana Belediyesi Web Sitesi, Haymana, www.haymana.bel.tr, Erişim:25.04.2016.
  14. Hermann, A., Schleifer, S., Wrbka, T., 2011. The concept of ecosystem services regarding landscape research: A review. Living Reviews in Landscape Research, 5:1. Hernandez, J.M., Suarez-Vega, R., Santana-Jimenez, Y., 2016. The inter-relationship between rural