Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Dağlık Alanların Turizm ile Gelişiminde Sosyal Yapıdan Kaynaklanan Avantajlar ve Dezavantajlar; Erzurum/Türkiye Örnek Alanı

Year 2013, , 75 - 85, 01.05.2013
https://doi.org/10.1501/Csaum_0000000075

Abstract

Dağlık alanlar, sahip oldukları potansiyeller sebebi ile (topografik yapıları, iklim yapıları, biyolojik, kültürel ve etnik çeşitlilikleri, eşsiz peyzaj nitelikleri vb.) küresel ölçekte önemli bir yere sahiptir. Ancak tüm bu pozitif niteliklerinin yanı sıra, sahip oldukları niteliklerden kaynaklanan kısıtlılıklar sebebi ile, dünyanın pek çok bölgesinde az gelişmiş alanlar arasında yer almaktadırlar. Dağlık alanlar özelinde, sürdürülebilir kalkınmanın ne şekilde sağlanabileceği konusunda Dünyada pek çok araştırma yapılmakta, bu alanların kalkınmasına ilişkin farklı modeller geliştirilmektedir. Dağlık alanlar için, sahip oldukları nitelikler de göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, turizm temelli kalkınma modelleri en çok tercih edilen modeller olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Hangi tür kalkınma modeli tercih edilirse edilsin, toplumların sosyal yapıları kalkınmada en önemli bileşenlerden birisidir. Bu nedenle, makale kapsamında yerel toplumların sosyal niteliklerinin, sürdürülebilir kalkınmadaki pozitif ve negatif etkileri analiz edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Konuya ilişkin kısa bir teorik girişin ardından çalışma alanı genel özellikleri ile tanımlanmış, üçüncü bölümde ise sürdürülebilir turizmin sosyal göstergeleri tartışılmıştır. Aynı bölümde, yerel toplumun sosyal yapısını tespit etmeye yönelik gerekli veriler (nüfusun cinsiyet dağılımı, yaş dağılımı, eğitim seviyesi vb.) ve çalışma alanı için belirlenen sürdürülebilir turizmin sosyal göstergeleri arazi çalışmaları ve anket yöntemleri ile ölçülmüş, elde edilen veriler, arazi gözlemleri ve sözlü görüşmeler de değerlendirilerek tartışılmıştır. Sonuç bölümünde, elde edilen verilere dayanılarak, dağlık alanların kalkınmasında, yerel toplumun sosyal yapısından kaynaklanan avantajlar ve dezavantajlar tartışılarak, uygulamaya yönelik pratik öneriler geliştirilemeye çalışılmıştır

References

  • Briquel, V. 2006. “Key Issues of Alpine Development”, Diamont, April 2006, 1-4.
  • Dax, T. 2002. “Research on mountain development in Europe: Overview of Issues and priorities”, The Innovative Structures for The Sustainable Development of Mountainous Areas Conference, Thessaloniki, 1-2.
  • Denniston, D. 1996. “People and The Planet: People and Mountains”, Pinnacles of Diversity, Planet 21, London. 5 (1) 1-4.
  • Euromontana. 2004. “Unlocking the mountains – a new approach to rural development for Europe’s mountains”, The Forth European Mountain Convention, France, 5.
  • Funnell, D. and Parish, R. 2001. “Mountain Environments and Communities”, Routledge, NY, 3-8, 260-264.
  • Gürer, N. 2009. “The Contribution of Tourism to The Development of Mountainous Regions, Case Study: Erzurum Erzincan Bayburt Region of Turkey”, Gazi University, Institute of Science and Technology, Department of City and Regional Planning, Ankara (Unpublished PhD Thesis).
  • Gürer, N. 2010. "The Tourism Potentials of Mountain Regions and The Insufficiency of Valuing Them", Global Change and the World’s Mountains Conference, 26-30 September 2010, Perth, Scotland, UK.
  • Heberlein, T.A., Fredman, P. and Vuorio, T. 2002. “Current Tourism Patterns in The Swedish Mountain Region”, Mountain Research and Development, 22 (2) 142-149.
  • Ives, J.D. 1992. “The State of The World Mountains”, London Zed Books, London, xiii-xv.
  • Kruk, E., Hummel, J. and Banskota K. 2007. “Facilitating Sustainable Mountain Tourism; Volume I – Resource Book”, ICIMOD, Nepal, 26, 30-34, 83-90.
  • Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü. 2009. Taşınmaz Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıkları Envanter Sistemi.
  • Messerli, B. and Ives, J.D. 1997. “Mountains of the World: a Global Priority”, London, Parthenon, 1-2.
  • Mountain Agenda. 1997. “Mountains of The World, Challenges for The 21st Century”, Mountain Agenda, Switzerland, 2-3.
  • Mountain Institute. 1999. “Mountains: A Global Resource”, A special supplement to Social Education, U.S. Agency for International Development, 282-296.
  • Nepal, S. 2002. “Mountain Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Ecology, Economics and Ethics”, Mountain Research and Development, 22 (2) 104-109.
  • Pickering C.M., Harrington, J. and Worboys, G. 2003. “Environmental Impacts of Tourism on the Australian Alps Protected Areas: Judgments of Protected Area Managers”, Mountain Research and Development, 23 (3): 247-254.
  • Price, M. 2002. “Mountains: Globally Important Ecosystems”, Moving Mountains, FAO Unasylva, No. 195, 2-8.
  • Price, M., Jansky, L. and Iatsenia, A. 2004. “Key Issues For Mountain Areas”, United Nations University Press, USA, 1-10, 38-57, 87-94, 111-118.
  • Price, M. and Kim, E. 1999. “Priorities For Sustainable Mountain Development in Europe, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 6: 203-219.
  • Rogerson, C.M. 2002. “Tourism and Local Economic Development: The Case of The Highlands Meander”, Development Southern Africa, 19 (1) 144-167.
  • Somuncu, M. and İnci, A. 2004. “Balancing Protection and Utilization in Overcoming Inaccessibility: A rural development model in a mountainous area of Turkey”, Mountain Research and Development, 24 (4): 307-311.
  • TUİK. 2007.“Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Nüfus Sayımı”, Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Ankara, 14, 31.

Tourism Development in Mountainous Regions, Social Structure’s Point of View; Advantages and Disadvantages, Erzurum/Turkey Case Area

Year 2013, , 75 - 85, 01.05.2013
https://doi.org/10.1501/Csaum_0000000075

Abstract

Mountainous regions have a global importance with their potentials like difficult topography, changing climate, biological, cultural and ethnical diversities, unique landscape values. However, despite to all the positive qualities, mountainous areas are less developed in many parts of the world due to some limitations caused by above listed values. There are too many researches done on how the sustainable development, particularly in mountainous areas can be realized, and different development models for mountainous areas are proposed. Tourism based development models are one of the most preferable development methods for the mountainous areas because of their characteristics. The social structure of the society is also an important component for the development in any situation and for every type of development model. For this reason this paper will try to analyze the effects of social qualities with both positive and negative effects. After a brief theoretical introduction of the topic, and a short description of the case area, the social indicators of sustainable tourism will be discussed. The indicators which are directly related with the social structure of the local society, like gender distribution, age pattern, education level are measured with questionnaires in Erzurum case study area for tourism sector. The observational results which are getting by interviews are also discussed. In conclusion, based on the results obtained, in development of mountainous areas the advantages and disadvantages, due to the social structure, will be discussed and practical suggestions will be evaluated

References

  • Briquel, V. 2006. “Key Issues of Alpine Development”, Diamont, April 2006, 1-4.
  • Dax, T. 2002. “Research on mountain development in Europe: Overview of Issues and priorities”, The Innovative Structures for The Sustainable Development of Mountainous Areas Conference, Thessaloniki, 1-2.
  • Denniston, D. 1996. “People and The Planet: People and Mountains”, Pinnacles of Diversity, Planet 21, London. 5 (1) 1-4.
  • Euromontana. 2004. “Unlocking the mountains – a new approach to rural development for Europe’s mountains”, The Forth European Mountain Convention, France, 5.
  • Funnell, D. and Parish, R. 2001. “Mountain Environments and Communities”, Routledge, NY, 3-8, 260-264.
  • Gürer, N. 2009. “The Contribution of Tourism to The Development of Mountainous Regions, Case Study: Erzurum Erzincan Bayburt Region of Turkey”, Gazi University, Institute of Science and Technology, Department of City and Regional Planning, Ankara (Unpublished PhD Thesis).
  • Gürer, N. 2010. "The Tourism Potentials of Mountain Regions and The Insufficiency of Valuing Them", Global Change and the World’s Mountains Conference, 26-30 September 2010, Perth, Scotland, UK.
  • Heberlein, T.A., Fredman, P. and Vuorio, T. 2002. “Current Tourism Patterns in The Swedish Mountain Region”, Mountain Research and Development, 22 (2) 142-149.
  • Ives, J.D. 1992. “The State of The World Mountains”, London Zed Books, London, xiii-xv.
  • Kruk, E., Hummel, J. and Banskota K. 2007. “Facilitating Sustainable Mountain Tourism; Volume I – Resource Book”, ICIMOD, Nepal, 26, 30-34, 83-90.
  • Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü. 2009. Taşınmaz Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıkları Envanter Sistemi.
  • Messerli, B. and Ives, J.D. 1997. “Mountains of the World: a Global Priority”, London, Parthenon, 1-2.
  • Mountain Agenda. 1997. “Mountains of The World, Challenges for The 21st Century”, Mountain Agenda, Switzerland, 2-3.
  • Mountain Institute. 1999. “Mountains: A Global Resource”, A special supplement to Social Education, U.S. Agency for International Development, 282-296.
  • Nepal, S. 2002. “Mountain Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Ecology, Economics and Ethics”, Mountain Research and Development, 22 (2) 104-109.
  • Pickering C.M., Harrington, J. and Worboys, G. 2003. “Environmental Impacts of Tourism on the Australian Alps Protected Areas: Judgments of Protected Area Managers”, Mountain Research and Development, 23 (3): 247-254.
  • Price, M. 2002. “Mountains: Globally Important Ecosystems”, Moving Mountains, FAO Unasylva, No. 195, 2-8.
  • Price, M., Jansky, L. and Iatsenia, A. 2004. “Key Issues For Mountain Areas”, United Nations University Press, USA, 1-10, 38-57, 87-94, 111-118.
  • Price, M. and Kim, E. 1999. “Priorities For Sustainable Mountain Development in Europe, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 6: 203-219.
  • Rogerson, C.M. 2002. “Tourism and Local Economic Development: The Case of The Highlands Meander”, Development Southern Africa, 19 (1) 144-167.
  • Somuncu, M. and İnci, A. 2004. “Balancing Protection and Utilization in Overcoming Inaccessibility: A rural development model in a mountainous area of Turkey”, Mountain Research and Development, 24 (4): 307-311.
  • TUİK. 2007.“Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Nüfus Sayımı”, Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Ankara, 14, 31.
There are 22 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Other ID JA37MR76AG
Journal Section Article
Authors

Nilüfer Gürer This is me

Publication Date May 1, 2013
Published in Issue Year 2013

Cite

APA Gürer, N. (2013). Tourism Development in Mountainous Regions, Social Structure’s Point of View; Advantages and Disadvantages, Erzurum/Turkey Case Area. Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi, 5(1), 75-85. https://doi.org/10.1501/Csaum_0000000075
AMA Gürer N. Tourism Development in Mountainous Regions, Social Structure’s Point of View; Advantages and Disadvantages, Erzurum/Turkey Case Area. Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi. May 2013;5(1):75-85. doi:10.1501/Csaum_0000000075
Chicago Gürer, Nilüfer. “Tourism Development in Mountainous Regions, Social Structure’s Point of View; Advantages and Disadvantages, Erzurum/Turkey Case Area”. Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi 5, no. 1 (May 2013): 75-85. https://doi.org/10.1501/Csaum_0000000075.
EndNote Gürer N (May 1, 2013) Tourism Development in Mountainous Regions, Social Structure’s Point of View; Advantages and Disadvantages, Erzurum/Turkey Case Area. Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi 5 1 75–85.
IEEE N. Gürer, “Tourism Development in Mountainous Regions, Social Structure’s Point of View; Advantages and Disadvantages, Erzurum/Turkey Case Area”, Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 75–85, 2013, doi: 10.1501/Csaum_0000000075.
ISNAD Gürer, Nilüfer. “Tourism Development in Mountainous Regions, Social Structure’s Point of View; Advantages and Disadvantages, Erzurum/Turkey Case Area”. Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi 5/1 (May 2013), 75-85. https://doi.org/10.1501/Csaum_0000000075.
JAMA Gürer N. Tourism Development in Mountainous Regions, Social Structure’s Point of View; Advantages and Disadvantages, Erzurum/Turkey Case Area. Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi. 2013;5:75–85.
MLA Gürer, Nilüfer. “Tourism Development in Mountainous Regions, Social Structure’s Point of View; Advantages and Disadvantages, Erzurum/Turkey Case Area”. Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi, vol. 5, no. 1, 2013, pp. 75-85, doi:10.1501/Csaum_0000000075.
Vancouver Gürer N. Tourism Development in Mountainous Regions, Social Structure’s Point of View; Advantages and Disadvantages, Erzurum/Turkey Case Area. Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi. 2013;5(1):75-8.