Factors affecting the use of urban forests in Turkey

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to find drivers behind visitor’s participation in the use of urban forests and to explain the differences in co-operation in urban forest management with the help of game theoretic modeling. For this purpose, data regarding public urban forests of Turkey were collected and analyzed by various statistical methods. According to the principal component analysis, leading factors affecting the use of urban forest were, ordered from the most important to the least important: (1) forest versatility, (2) management intensity, (3) visitor services, (4) forest tranquility, and (5) forest activities. These five factors accounted for 71% of the total variance among the variables. Furthermore, multiple regression analyses showed that, especially in cities with an abundance of forests, the use of urban forests was not widespread, whereas urban forests were visited more in the settlements having a high number of young population and a large family size. The estimated game theoretic model on participation indicated that the availability of forest services among visitors was generally harmonious. It could be concluded that urban forestry has to focus, not only on increasing the number and size of urban forests, but also on educating all relevant social groups in society on how to use urban forests in a sustainable and responsible manner.

Keywords

• Green infrastructure,Management,Urbanization,Recreation

Türkiye'de kent ormanlarının kullanımını etkileyen faktörler

Abstract

Bu makalenin amacı, kent ormanlarının kullanımında ziyaretçilerin katılımını etkileyen faktörleri ortaya koymak ve kent ormanı yönetimindeki farklılıkları oyun teorisi modellemesi yardımıyla açıklamaktır. Bu amaçla, Türkiye’deki kent ormanları ile ilgili veriler toplanmış ve bu veriler farklı istatistik yöntemlerle analiz edilmiştir. Temel Bileşenler Analizi’ne göre, kent ormanlarının kullanımını etkileyen başlıca faktörler en önemliden en aza doğru (1) orman çok yönlülüğü, (2) yönetim gücü, (3) ziyaretçi hizmetleri, (4) orman rekreasyonu ve (5) orman aktiviteleri olarak sıralanmıştır. Bu beş faktör değişkenler arasındaki toplam varyansın %71’ini açıklamaktadır. Bundan başka, çoklu regresyon analizi özellikle ormanların çok olduğu şehirlerde kent ormanlarının çok kullanılmadığını buna karşılık genç nüfus ve aile birey sayısının fazla olduğu yerleşim yerlerinde kent ormanlarının daha çok ziyaret edildiğini göstermiştir. Katılımcı üzerine yürütülen tahmini oyun teorisi modeli ise ziyaretçiler arasındaki orman hizmetlerinden yararlanmanın genellikle uyumlu olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu çalışmayla, kent ormancılığının sadece kent ormanlarının sayısını ve büyüklüğünü artırmaya değil, aynı zamanda kent ormanlarının sürdürülebilir ve sorumlu bir şekilde nasıl kullanılacağı konusunda bütün ilgi gruplarını eğitmeye odaklanması gerektiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

• Yeşil altyapı,Yönetim,Kentleşme,Rekreasyon

References

1. ABPRS, 2010. Turkish Statistical Institute, Address Based Population Registration System. http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/adnksdagitapp/ adnks.zul?dil=2. Accessed: 22.12.2010.
2. Atay, İ., 1988. Urban Forestry. İstanbul, Turkey, İstanbul University Forestry Faculty Publications, İstanbul.
3. Atmiş, E., 2004. Urbanization's pressures and urban sensitivity on forests. 1st National Urban Forestry Congress Proceedings Book. 9-11 April 2004, Ankara, Turkey, pp. 401-413.
4. Atmiş, E., 2016. Development of urban forest governance in Turkey. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 19:158-166.
5. Atmiş, E., Özden, S., Lise, W., 2007. Urbanizations pressures on the natural forests in Turkey: An overview. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(2):83-92.
6. Atmiş, E., Günşen, H.B., Yücedağ, C., 2011. An evaluation on urban forests in Mediterranean region. Turkey: 1st National Mediterranean Forest and Environment Symposium Proceedings Book, 26-28 October 2011, Kahramanmaraş, pp. 78-91.
7. Atmiş, E., Günşen, H.B., Yücedağ, C., Lise, W., 2012. Status, use and management of urban forestry in Turkey. Journal of South-East European Forestry, 3(2):69-78.
8. Bekiroğlu, S., Destan, S., Can, M., Turkoglu, T., Tolunay, A., 2015. Econometric analysis of a forest recreation area: an example from İstanbul, Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 24: 2937-2945.

9. Clark, J.R., Matheny, N.P., Cross, G., Wake, V., 1997. A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture, 23(1):17-30.
10. Coşkun, A.A.,Velioğlu, N., 2004. Definition and legal aspect of urban forest. 1st National Urban Forestry Congress Proceedings Book. 9-11 April 2004, Ankara, Turkey, pp. 19-33.
11. Çağlar, Y., 2004. New adventure of forestry in Turkey: "urban forestry". 1st National Urban Forestry Congress Proceedings Book. 9-11 April 2004, Ankara, Turkey, pp. 472-481.
12. Dislich, R., Pivello, V.R., 2002. Tree structure and species composition changes in an urban tropical forest fragment (Sao Paulo, Brazil) during a five-year interval. Bol. Bot. Univ. Sao Paulo, 20:1-11.
13. Elvan, D., Velioğlu, N., 2004. Legal principals of urban forest management. 1st National Urban Forestry Congress Proceedings Book. 9-11 April 2004, Ankara, Turkey, pp. 118-133.
14. Eroğlu, E., Müderrisoğlu, H., Akıncı Kesim, G., 2012.The effect of seasonal change of plants compositions on visual perception. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 20(3):196-205.
15. GDF, 2015. General Directorate of Forestry. http://web.ogm.gov.tr. Accessed: 18.11.2015.
16. Gezer, A., Gül, A., 2009. Urban Forestry (Conceptual, Technical and Cultural Approaches). Süleyman Demirel University Forestry Faculty Publications, Isparta.
17. Gundersen, V.S., Frivold, L.H., 2008. Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 7:241–258.
18. Gül, A., Gezer, A., Kane, B., 2006. Multi-criteria analysis for locating new urban forests: An example from Isparta, Turkey. Urban Forestry & Urban Planning, 5(2):57-71.
19. Gül, A., Yazıcı, N., Kuş Şahin, C., 2013. Opinions, tendencies and preferences about urban forestry of urban residents: A case study on the Isparta City-Turkey. Energy Education Science and Technology Part A: Energy Science and Research, 30(2):933-944.
20. Hauru, K., Koskinen, S., Kotze, D.J., Lehvävirta, S., 2014. The effects of decaying logs on the aesthetic experience and acceptability of urban forests – implications for forest management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 123:114-123.
21. Ignatieva, M., Stewart, G.H., Colin, M., 2011. Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 7:17-25.
22. Ja-Choon, K., Mi Sun, P., Yeo-Chang, Y., 2013. Preferences of urban dwellers on urban forest recreational services in South Korea. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12:200-210.
23. Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y., 2009. Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forest in China. Cities, 26(4):187-194.
24. Kenney, W.A., Van Wassenaer, P.J.E., Satel, A.L., 2011. Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning and management. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 37(3):108-117.
25. Konijnendijk, C.C., 2008. The Forest and City - The Cultural Landscape of Urban Woodland. Denmark, Springer.
26. Kurdoğlu, O., Düzgüneş, E., Kurdoğlu, B.Ç., 2011. Evaluation of conceptual legal and environmental aspects of urban forests. Artvin Çoruh University Faculty of Forestry Journal, 12 (1): 72-85.
27. Lehvävirta, S., Vilisics, F., Hamberg, L., Malmivaara-Lämsä Kotze, D.J., 2014. Fragmentation and recreational use affect tree regeneration in urban forests. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(4):869-877.
28. Lise, W., 2007. An Econometric and Game Theoretic Model of Common Pool Resource Management: People's Participation in Forest Management in India. Nova Science Publishers Inc., Hauppauge, New York.
29. Mansfield, C., Pattanayak, S.K., Mc Dow, W., Mc Donald, R., Halpind, P., 2005. Shades of Green: Measuring the value of urban forests in the housing market. Journal of Forest Economics, 11:177–199.
30. MEF, 2011. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Forestry. http://www.cevreorman.gov.tr. Accessed:30.03.2011.
31. Nowak, D.J., Hoehn, III R.E., Crane, D.E., Stevens, J.C., Walton, J.T., Bond, N.Y.J., Ina, G., 2006. Assessing urban forest effects and values. USDA Forest Service Publications, Northeastern Research Station Resource Bulletin NE-166.
32. Peckham, S.C., Duinker, P.N., Ordónez, C., 2013. Urban forest values in Canada: Views of citizens in Calgary and Halifax. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12:154-162.
33. Schipperijn, J., Stigsdotter, U.K., Randrup, T.B., Troelsen, J. 2010. Influences on the use of urban green space - A case study in Odense, Denmark. Urban Forestry & Urban Planning, 9(1):25-32.
34. Schmithüsen, F., Kazemi, Y., Seeland, K., 1997. Perceptions and attitudes of the population towards forests and their social benefits. Social origins and research topics of studies conducted in Germany, Austria and Switzerland between 1960 and 1995. Vienna, IUFRO.
35. Song, W., Kim, E., 2016. Landscape factors affecting the distribution of the great titin fragmented urban forests of Seoul, South Korea. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 12:73-83.
36. SPO, 2010. State Planning Organization. http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/bolgesel/gosterge. Accessed:30.03.2010.
37. SPSS Inc., 2011. SPSS 20.0 guide to data analysis. Prentice Hall Public, New Jersey.
38. Thomson, M.J., 2014. Forest fragmentation. http://www.ontarionature.org/discover/resources/PDFs/factsheets/fragmentation.pdf. Accessed:15.11.2014.
39. TSMS, 2010. Turkish State Meteorological Service. http://www.meteoroloji.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx: Accessed: 25.12.2010.
40. Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Kolehmainen, O., 2003. Can ecological and aesthetic values be combined in urban forest management? Urban Forests & Urban Greening, 1(3):35-149.
41. Tyrväinen, L., Pauleit, S., Seeland, K., de Vries, S., 2004. Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. In: Nilsson K, Randrup TB, Konijnendijk CC, (Eds.), Urban Forests and Trees in Europe A Reference Book. Springer Verlag.