Year 2020, Volume 4 , Issue 1, Pages 76 - 81 2020-06-29

Sulak Alan Kıymetlendirme Yöntemleri
Wetland Valuation Methods

Levent BİLER [1] , Ahmet ALTİNDAG [2]


Çevrenin ve özellikle sulak alanların kıymetlendirilmesinde çeşitli yöntemler kullanılmaktadır. Bu yöntemler bu derleme makalesinde özetlenmiş ve öneri olarak sulak alanlarda hangi yöntemlerin uygulanabileceği tartışılmıştır. Korunan alanlarda seyahat masrafı yöntemi, biyolojik çeşitliliğin kıymeti, koşullu kıymetlendirme yöntemi ve her ne kadar Türkiye’de değişken bir piyasa olsa da piyasa kıymeti olan mal ve hizmetlerin kıymetlendirilmesi uygun olacaktır. Korunan alan dışındaki veya ziyaretçi kaydı tutulmadığı alanlarda biyolojik çeşitliliğin kıymeti, koşullu kıymetlendirme yöntemi ve piyasa kıymeti olan mal ve hizmetlerin kıymetlendirilmesi uygun olacaktır.
Various methods are used in the valuation of the environment and especially wetlands. All of these methods are summarized in this review paper, and suggestions are discussed. In protected areas travel costs method, the value of biological diversity, contingent valuation method, and even Turkey has a variable market, the value of the goods and services would be appropriate to valuation. In other areas, where visitors are not logged, the value of biological diversity, the conditional valuation method, and the valuation of goods and services with market value would be appropriate.
  • Adaya, A.L., Bdliya, H.H., Bitrus, H., & Polet, G. (1997). Local-level assessment of the economic importance of wild resources in the Hadejia-Nguru Wetlands, Nigeria (Sustainable Agriculture Programme Research Series, vol. 3). Report compiled by the participants and resource people in the IIED/HNWCP Hidden Harvest case study.
  • Barbier, E., Acreman, M.C., & Knowler, D. (1997). Economic Valuation of Wetlands: A Guide for Policy Makers and Planners. Department of Environmental Economics and Environmental Management, University of York Institute of Hydrology, Ramsar Convention Bureau, Switzerland, 127 pp.
  • Barbier, E.B. (1989). The Economic Value of Ecosystems:1 – Tropical Wetlands. Issue 89, Part 2 of Gatekeeper series / LEEC, London, The United Kingdom, International Institute for Environment and Development, 18 pp.
  • Barbier, E.B. (1993). Sustainable use of wetlands – valuing tropical wetland benefits: Economic methodologies and applications. The Geographical Journal, 159, 22-32. http://dx.doi.org\10.2307/3451486
  • Barbier, E.B. (1994). Valuing environmental functions: Tropical wetlands. Land Economics, 70, 155-173. http://dx.doi.org\10.2307/3146319
  • Başar, H. (2007). Dilek Yarımadası-Büyük Menderes Deltası Milli Parkının Rekreasyon Amacıyla Kullanımının Ekonomik Değerinin Saptanması: Bir Seyahat Maliyeti Yöntemi Uygulaması (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Ege Üniversitesi, İzmir, Türkiye.
  • Batie, S.S., & Shabman, L.A. (1982). Estimating the economic value of wetlands: Principles, methods and limitations. Coastal Zone Management Journal, 10, 255-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920758209361920
  • Bergstrom, J.C., & Stoll, J.R. (1993). Value estimator models for wetlands-based recreational use values. Land Economics, 69(2), 132-137. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146513
  • Biler, L. (2019). Sulak Alanlar, Değer Biçme ve Türkiye’ye Özgü Yöntem Belirlenmesi ve Balıkdamı Sulak Alanında Uygulanması (Doktora Tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • Birol, E., Karousakis, K., & Koundouri, P. (2006). Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 145-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06.002
  • Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., & Liljenstolpe, C. (2003). Valuing wetland attributes: An application of choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 47(1), 95-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2002.09.003
  • Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253-259. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
  • Emerton, L. (1998). Economic Tools for Valuing Wetlands in Eastern Africa. Nairobi, Kenya, IUCN – The World Conservation Union, 21 pp.
  • Fisher, B., & Christie, M. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations. In R. De Groot, B. Fisher, M. Christie, J. Aranson, L. Braat, R. Haines-Young, E. Maltby, A. Neuville, S. Polasky, R. Portela & I. Ring (Eds.), Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation (pp. 3-33). London and Washington, The UK and The USA, Pushpam Kumar, 422 pp.
  • Georgiou, S., Whittington, D., Pearce, D., & Moran, D. (1997). Economic Values and the Environment in the Developing World. London, The United Kingdom, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 171 pp.
  • Green, P.E., & Rao, V.R. (1971). Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgement data. Journal of Market Research, 8, 355-363. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377100800312
  • Gürlük, S. (2006). Manyas Gölü ve Kuş Cenneti’nin Çevresel Değerlemesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma (Doktora Tezi). Uludağ Üniversitesi, Bursa, Türkiye.
  • Gürlük, S. (2010). Economic Value of an Environmental Management Plan: Case of Uluabat Lake. Journal of Biological and Environmental Sciences, 4(11), 59-65.
  • Gürlük, S., Rehber, E. (2008). A travel cost study to estimated recreational value for a bird refuge at Lake Manyas, Turkey. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), 1350-1360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman. 2007.07.017
  • Hanley, N., Wright, R.E., & Alvarez-Farizo, B. (2006). Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: An application to the water framework directive. Journal of Environmental Management, 78(2), 183-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2005.05.001
  • Helm, D. (1991). Economic Policy Towards the Environment. Blackwell Publication, 326 pp.
  • Johnston, R.J., Grigalunas, T.A., Opaluch, J.J., Mazzotta, M., & Diamantedes, J. (2002). Valuing estuarine resource services using economic and ecological models: The Peonic Estuary System study. Coastal Management, 30(1), 47-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08920750252692616
  • Keleş, R., & Hamamcı, C. (1993). Çevrebilim. Ankara, Türkiye, İmge Kitabevi, 368 pp.
  • Kula, E. (1994). Economics of natural resources, the environment and policies. London, UK, 377 pp.
  • Mitchell, R.C., & Carson, T.R. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington D.C., The United States of America, Resources for the Future, 463 pp.
  • Ortaçeşme, V., Özkan, B., & Karagüzel, O. (2002). An estimation of the recreational use value of Kursunlu Waterfall Nature Park by the individual travel cost method. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 26(1), 57-62.
  • OSİB. (2012). Biyokıymetlendirme Teknik Uygulayıcıları: Sultan Sazlığı Milli Parkı Pilot Uygulaması (T.C. Orman ve Su İşleri Bakanlığı). Ankara, Türkiye, Taha Grup Kırtasiye, 456 pp.
  • Pak, M., & Türker, M.F. (2004). Orman Kaynağından Rekreasyonel Amaçlı Yararlanmanın Ekonomik Değerinin Koşullu Değerlendirme Yöntemi Yardımıyla Tahmin Edilmesi (Kapıçam Orman İçi Dinlenme Yeri Örneği). Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University Journal of Science and Engineering, 7(1), 59-65.
  • Pearce, D., Whittington, D., Georgiou, S., & Moran, D. (1994). Economic values and the environment in the developing World. London, The United Kingdom, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 171 pp.
  • Pearce, D.W., & Warford, J.J. (1993). World Without End. Washington D.C., The United States of America, Oxford University Press, 440 pp.
  • Perman, R., Ma, Y., & McGilvray, J. (1996). Natural Resource and Environmental Economics. London, UK, Longman Group Limited, 396 pp.
  • Perrings, C., Maler, K.G., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., & Jansson B.O. (1997). Biodiversity Loss: Economic and Ecological Issues. In Turner, R.K., Folke, C., Gren, I. M., & Bateman, J. I. (First Edition), Wetland Valuation: Three case Studies (pp. 129-149). Cambridge, the UK, Cambridge University Press, 332 pp.
  • Scodari, P.F. (1990). Wetlands Protection: the Role of Economics. Washington, D.C., The USA, Environmental Law Institute, 89 pp.
  • Shaw, W.D. (1992). Searching for the opportunity cost of an individual's time. Land Economics, 68(1), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146747
  • Smith, V.K., Desvouges, W.H., & McGivney, M.P. (1983). The opportunity cost of travel time in recreation demand models. Land Economics, 59 (3), 259-278. https://doi.org/10.2307/3145728
  • Sönmez, M.E. & Somuncu, M. (2016). Sultansazlığı’nın alansal değişiminin sürdürülebilirlik açısından değerlendirilmesi. Türk Coğrafya Dergisi, 66, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.17211/tcd.70341.
  • Stevens, T.H., Belkener, R., Dennis, D., Kittredge, D., & Willis, C. (2000). Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management. Ecological Economics, 32(1), 63-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00071-3
  • Stuip, M.A.M., Baker, C.J., & Oosterberg, W. (2002). The Socio-economics of Wetlands. Wageningen, the Netherlands, Wetlands International and RIZA, 34 pp.
  • Tiner, R.W. (1984). Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Trends. Washington, D.C., the USA, Fish and Wildlife Service, 59 pp.
  • Turner, R.K., Morse-Jones, S., & Fisher, B. (2010). Ecosystem valuation: A sequential decision support system and quality assessment issue. Annals of the York Academy of Scence, 1185(1), 79-101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05280.x
  • Turner, R.K., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Söderqvist, T., Barendregt, A., van der Straaten, J., Maltby, E., & van Ierland, E.C. (2000). Special issue: The values of wetlands: Landscape and institutional perspectives. Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: Scientific integration for management and policy. Ecological Economics, 35, 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00164-6
  • Turpie J., & Joubert A. (2001). Estimating potential impacts of a change in river quality on the tourism value of Kruger National Park: An application of travel cost, contingent and conjoint valuation methods. Water SA, 27(3), 387-398. https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v27i3.4983
  • Turpie, J.K., Lannas, K., Scovronick, N., & Louw, A. (2010), Wetland Valuation. Vol I: Wetland Ecosystem Services And Their Valuation: A Review Of Current Understanding And Practice (WRC Report No. TT 440/09). Limpopo, South Africa, Water Research Commission, 115 pp.
  • Van Zyl, H., & Leiman, A. (2002). Hedonic approaches to estimating the impacts of open spaces: A case study in the Cape. South African Journal of Economics and Management, 5(2), 379-394. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v5i2.2681
Primary Language tr
Subjects Biology
Journal Section Review Articles
Authors

Orcid: 0000-0002-2578-8530
Author: Levent BİLER (Primary Author)
Institution: ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Country: Turkey


Orcid: 0000-0002-9900-5914
Author: Ahmet ALTİNDAG
Institution: ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Country: Turkey


Dates

Application Date : March 30, 2020
Acceptance Date : June 3, 2020
Publication Date : June 29, 2020

Bibtex @review { commagene711156, journal = {Commagene Journal of Biology}, issn = {}, eissn = {2602-456X}, address = {Adıyaman Bilimsel Araştırmalar Derneği,}, publisher = {ABADER (Adıyaman Bilimsel Araştırmalar Derneği)}, year = {2020}, volume = {4}, pages = {76 - 81}, doi = {10.31594/commagene.711156}, title = {Sulak Alan Kıymetlendirme Yöntemleri}, key = {cite}, author = {Bi̇ler, Levent and Alti̇ndag, Ahmet} }
APA Bi̇ler, L , Alti̇ndag, A . (2020). Sulak Alan Kıymetlendirme Yöntemleri . Commagene Journal of Biology , 4 (1) , 76-81 . DOI: 10.31594/commagene.711156
MLA Bi̇ler, L , Alti̇ndag, A . "Sulak Alan Kıymetlendirme Yöntemleri" . Commagene Journal of Biology 4 (2020 ): 76-81 <https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/commagene/issue/52124/711156>
Chicago Bi̇ler, L , Alti̇ndag, A . "Sulak Alan Kıymetlendirme Yöntemleri". Commagene Journal of Biology 4 (2020 ): 76-81
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Sulak Alan Kıymetlendirme Yöntemleri AU - Levent Bi̇ler , Ahmet Alti̇ndag Y1 - 2020 PY - 2020 N1 - doi: 10.31594/commagene.711156 DO - 10.31594/commagene.711156 T2 - Commagene Journal of Biology JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 76 EP - 81 VL - 4 IS - 1 SN - -2602-456X M3 - doi: 10.31594/commagene.711156 UR - https://doi.org/10.31594/commagene.711156 Y2 - 2020 ER -
EndNote %0 Kommagene Biyoloji Dergisi Sulak Alan Kıymetlendirme Yöntemleri %A Levent Bi̇ler , Ahmet Alti̇ndag %T Sulak Alan Kıymetlendirme Yöntemleri %D 2020 %J Commagene Journal of Biology %P -2602-456X %V 4 %N 1 %R doi: 10.31594/commagene.711156 %U 10.31594/commagene.711156
ISNAD Bi̇ler, Levent , Alti̇ndag, Ahmet . "Sulak Alan Kıymetlendirme Yöntemleri". Commagene Journal of Biology 4 / 1 (June 2020): 76-81 . https://doi.org/10.31594/commagene.711156
AMA Bi̇ler L , Alti̇ndag A . Sulak Alan Kıymetlendirme Yöntemleri. Comm. J. Biol.. 2020; 4(1): 76-81.
Vancouver Bi̇ler L , Alti̇ndag A . Sulak Alan Kıymetlendirme Yöntemleri. Commagene Journal of Biology. 2020; 4(1): 76-81.
IEEE L. Bi̇ler and A. Alti̇ndag , "Sulak Alan Kıymetlendirme Yöntemleri", Commagene Journal of Biology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 76-81, Jun. 2020, doi:10.31594/commagene.711156