Assessment Of Urban Cultural Herıtage Areas In The Context Of Cultural Ecosystem Services ‘Kayseri-Talas Historical Urban Pattern Example’

Year 2021, Volume: 6 Issue: 4, 749 - 756, 31.12.2021

Aslihan Tırnakçı

https://doi.org/10.35229/jaes.983932

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Every society place high value on the protection and transmission from generation to generation of urban cultural heritage areas that consisting of physical objects or places. In this context, in recent years many studies have been carried out for the evaluation of the benefits of ecosystems to humans. In particular, there is an increasing interest in cultural ecosystem services which provide many social and environmental benefits and its subcategory of cultural heritage.
In this study, Talas historical urban pattern, which is an urban cultural heritage area in the city of Kayseri, were chosen as the study area. The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the cultural ecosystem services of provided by historical urban pattern which appear as a cultural heritage site in urban areas,by using the ecosystem services approach. The services offered by the study area were evaluated in the context of the determined parameters (opportunities for recreation and eco-tourism / social relations / physical and experiential interactions, cultural diversity, cultural heritage values / spiritual and religious values / spiritual and emblematic interactions, sense of place, inspiration for culture, art and design, aesthetic values, social relations / information for cognitive development) were examined in the evaluation table.
As a result of the study, it was determined that the Talas historical urban pattern provides a wide range of cultural ecosystem services to city residents and visitors.

Keywords

Cultural heritage, Cultural ecosystem services, Kayseri-Talas

Kentsel Kültürel Miras Alanlarının Kültürel Ekosistem Servisleri Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi ‘Kayseri-Talas Tarihi Kent Dokusu Örneği’

Abstract

Her toplum fiziksel nesnelerden veya mekânlardan oluşan kentsel kültürel miras alanlarının korunmasına ve nesilden nesile aktarılmasına büyük önem vermektedir. Bu bağlamda son zamanlarda ekosistemlerin insanlara sağladığı faydaların değerlendirilmesine yönelik birçok çalışma yapılmaktadır. Özellikle sosyal ve çevresel birçok fayda sağlayan kültürel ekosistem hizmetlerine ve onun bir alt kategorisi olan kültürel mirasa artan bir ilgi söz konusudur.
Bu çalışmada Kayseri kentinde bir kentsel kültürel miras alanı olan Talas tarihi kent dokusu çalışma alanı olarak seçilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı kentsel alanlarda bir kültürel miras alanı olarak karşımıza çıkan tarihi kent dokularının sağladığı kültürel ekosistem hizmetlerini ekosistem hizmetleri yaklaşımını kullanarak değerlendirmektir. Çalışma alanının sunduğu kültürel ekosistem servisleri belirlenen (rekreasyon ve eko-turizm için fırsatlar / sosyal ilişkiler / fiziksel ve deneyimsel etkileşimler, kültürel çeşitlilik, kültürel miras değeri / dini ve ruhani değerler/ manevi ve sembolik etkileşimler, yer ve mekân hissi, kültür-sanat ve tasarım için ilham kaynağı / estetik değerler, sosyal ilişkiler / bilişsel gelişim için bilgi) parametreler çerçevesinde değerlendirilmiş ve oluşturulan çizelgelere işlenmiştir. Çalışma sonucu Talas kent dokusunun kentlilere ve ziyaretçilere geniş bir yelpazede kültürel ekosistem servisleri sunduğu belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Kültürel miras, Kayseri-Talas, Kültürel ekosistem servisleri

References

• Anonim, (2003). Kayseri-Talas Koruma Amaçlı İmar Planı Revizyonu Plan Açıklama Raporu
• Benedict, M. A., McMahon, E. T. (2002). Green infrastructure: Smart conservation for the 21st century. Renewable Resources Journal, 20, 12–17.
• Birol, G., (2007). “ Bir Kentin Kimliği Ve Kervansaray Oteli Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, Arkitekt Dergisi, sayı 514, s. 46-54
• Blake, J., (2015). International Cultural Heritage Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Büyükmıhçı, G., Yılmaz Bakır, N., Eldek, H., (2009). Talas (Kayseri) Kentsel Kültür Varlıkları Envanteri (2007 - 2009), Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Kültür Envanteri Dergisi, Sayı: 7, 25-44 Chan, K. M. A., 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
• Christensen, A. L., (2011). Kunsten å bevare. Om kulturminnevern og fortidsinteresse i Norge [The art of preservation. About cultural heritage management and the interest for the past in Norway]. Oslo: Pax forlag AS.
• Choay, F., (2001). The Invention of the Historic Monument. Allégorie du patrimoine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• CICES. (2021). “Structures of CICES.” http://cices.eu/cices-structure/ (Erişim:16.08.2021)
• Evensen, K., Nordh, H., Skaar, M., (2017). Everyday use of urban cemeteries: a Norwegian case study. Landscape Urban Planning, 159, 76–84
• Fábos, J.G., Ryan, R.L., (2006). An introduction to greenway planning around the world. Landscape and Urban Planning, 76(1), 1–6.
• Fish, R., Church, A., Winter, M. (2016). Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: a novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosystem Services, 21, 208–217.
• Forrest, C., (2010). International Law and the Protection of Cultural Heritage. London: Routledge Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2013). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/ IEA/09/003.
• Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., De Vries, S. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 207–228.
• Holme, J., (2005). Kulturminnevern: lov, forvaltning, håndhevelse. B.2: Kulturminneloven med kommentarer [Cultural Heritage Management: Law, Management and Enforcement. Part 2: The Cultural Heritage Act with Comments]. Oslo: Økokrim
• Karaşah, B. (2020). Kentsel Yeşil Altyapıların Önemli Bir Bileşeni Olan Kent Ormanlarının Sağladığı Ekosistem Servisleri “Kafkasör Kent Ormanı Örneği”. Anadolu Çev. ve Hay. Dergisi, 5(4), 668-675.
• Kubalíková, L., (2020). "Cultural Ecosystem Services of Geodiversity: A Case Study from Stránská skála (Brno, Czech Republic)" Land 9, no. 4: 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9040105
• Kurtar, C., Somuncu, M., (2013). Kentsel Kültürel Mirasın Korunması ve Sürdürülebilirliği: Ankara Hamamönü Örneği, Ankara Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 35-47
• MA. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being Synthesis. Island Press. http:// www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf
• Nordic World Heritage Foundation, (2003). Cultural Heritage Management and Tourism. www.nwhf.no.
• Nafziger, J. A. R., (2012). Cultural Heritage Law. Vol. 2. International law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
• Nafziger, J.A.R., Kirkwood, R., (2014). Handbook on the Law of Cultural Heritage and International Trade, Chapter 1: Cultural heritage law, p:18
• O’Brien, L., De Vreese, R., Kern, M., Sievänen, T., Stojanova, B., Atmis, E. (2017). Cultural ecosystem benefits of urban and peri-urban greeninfrastructure across different European countries. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 24, 236–248.
• Rojas, E., (2016). Urban Heritage For Sustainable Development, Cultur-Urban-Future, Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban Development, UNESCO
• Stephens, R., (2016). Culture and urban planning. In Bandarin, Francesco (ed.), Culture urban future: Global report on culture for sustainable urban development.
• TEEB. (2010). “The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature a Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB.” http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Synthesis%20 report/TEEB%20Synthesis%20Report%202010.pdf
• Tengberg, Anna, Susanne Fredholm, Ingegard Eliasson, Igor Knez, Katarina Saltzman, and Ola Wetterberg. (2012). “Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity.” Ecosystem Services, 2: 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.006.
• Thiele, J., Albert, C., Hermes, J., von Haaren, C. (2020). Assessing and quantifying offered cultural ecosystem services of German river landscapes. Ecosystem Services, 42, 101080.
• Timothy, D.J., (2011). Cultural Heritage and Tourism:An Introduction.United Kingdom: Channel View Publications
• Trigger, B. G., (2006). A History of Archaeological Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Tweed, C., Sutherland, M., (2007). Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development, Landscape and Urban Planning, 83 (1), 62-69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.008.