The comparison of visitor management frameworks in protected natural areas

Year 2012, Volume: 13 Issue: 1, 57 - 65, 06.04.2012

Sibel Akten , Atila Gül , Murat Akten

Abstract

In nowadays, basic protection aims of protected natural areas usually are conflicting to recreation /tourism aims in Turkey. As a result of it effects to all natural and cultural values in protected areas negatively. Therefore, it is needed to visitor management frameworks for providing to protect and use balance, and evaluate of optimal recreational/tourism potential in protected areas. This method has to have some data including determination of visitor's demands, change levels of using to social and physical effects, and standards of designed visitor's services and facilities. Some visitor management frameworks which were developed in United State, differed each to the other in terms of their purposes and process. Therefore, it is needed development or investigation of optimal model(s) in Turkey's conditions.

Keywords

-

Korunan doğal alanlarda kullanılabilecek ziyaretçi yönetim modelleri ve karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Günümüzde bilimsel ve teknik anlamda yasa ile koruma altına alınan doğal alanların temel kaynak koruma gerekçeleri özellikle rekreasyon/turizm amaçlarıyla çoğunlukla çelişmekte ve rekabet edememektedir. Böylece söz konusu korunması arzulanan biyolojik çeşitlik başta olmak üzere doğal ve kültürel değerler olumsuz etkilenmektedir. Bu nedenle korunan doğal alanlarda kaynak ve kullanıcı arasındaki hassas olan koruma kullanma dengesinin sağlanabilmesi ve rekreasyonel/turizm potansiyelinin en iyi şekilde değerlendirilmesi için ziyaretçi yönetim planının yapılmasına ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Özellikle ziyaretçi tesis, hizmet ve etkinliklerin tasarım standartlarının belirlenmesi, sosyal ve fiziksel etkilerdeki değişimlere ilişkin kullanım düzeylerinin ilişkilendirilmesi, kullanım modellerine ilişkin tahminlerin genellenmesi ve talep eğilimlerinin saptanması gibi bilgilere yer verilmelidir. Amerika'da çok sayıda ziyaretçi yönetim modelleri geliştirilmiş, ancak amaç ve yöntemleri açısından farklılıklar bulunmaktadır. Bu nedenle ülkemiz koşullarına en uygun model (ler) in araştırılması ve geliştirilmesi gerekmektedir.

Keywords

Korunan doğal alanlar, Ziyaretçi yönetim modeli, Rekreasyon

References

• Absher, J. 1989. Aplying the Limits of Acceptable Change Model to National Park Service Wilderness: An Example from Cumberland Island National Seahore. Proceedings of the 1988 Southeastern Recreation Conference. 143-152.
• Arnberger, A. and Hinterberger B. 2003. Visitor Monitoring Methods for Managing Public use Pressures in the Danube Floodplains National Park, Austria. Journal for Nature Conservation 11, 260-267.
• Avcı, N. 2007. Turizmde Taşıma Kapasitesinin Önemi. Ege Akademik Bakış 7(2), İzmir, S:493-509.
• Bell, S. 2001. Design for outdoor recreation. Spon Press, London, 217 pp.
• Cessford, G. and Muhar, A. 2003. Monitoring options for visitor numbers in national parks and natural areas, Journal for Nature Conservation 11, 240-250.
• Clark, R.N., Stankey, S. 1990. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, Management and Research. In: Graham, R.; Lawrence, R., eds. Towards serving visitors and managing our resources—proceedings of a North American workshop on visitor management in parks and protected areas. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo: 127- 156.
• Driver, B., Brown, P. 1978. The opportunity spectrum and behavioural information in outdoor recreation resource supply inventories: a rationale. In: Gyde, H. Lund and others, tech. coords. Integrated inventories and renewable natural resources: proceedings of the workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-55. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 24-31.
• Driver, B. 1990. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: basic concepts and use in land management planning. In: Graham, R.; Lawrence, R., eds. Towards serving visitors and managing our resources—proceedings of a North American workshop on visitor management in parks and protected areas. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo: 159-183 p.
• Eagles, P.F.J., McCool, S.F., and Haynes, C.D. 2002. Tourism in National Parks Management, USA. 167-172 p. Areas: Planning and
• Graefe, A. 1990. Visitor Impact Management. In: Graham, R.; Lawrence, R., eds. Towards serving visitors and managing our resources-proceedings of a North American workshop on visitor management in parks and protected areas. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo: 213-234 p.
• Graefe, A.R., Kuss, F.R and Vaske, J.J. 1990. Visitor Impact Management:The Planning Framework. National Parks and Conservation Association, Washington, DC,156 p.
• Gül, A., 2005. Korunan Doğal Alanların Planlama Sorunları ve Ekolojik Yönetim Planı Önerisi. Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı 1. Çevre ve Ormancılık Şurası Tebliğleri, Ankara, s:1421-1429.
• Gül, A., Akten, M. 2005. Korunan Doğal Alanlarda Rekreasyonel Taşıma Kapasitesi ve Kavramsal Yaklaşımlar. Korunan Doğal Alanlar Sempozyumu 8- 10 Eylül Isparta, s:485-494.
• Gül, A., Özaltın, O. 2007. Türkiye’deki Korunan Doğal Alanlarda Ekoturizm Amaçlı Ekolojik Planlama Yaklaşımı. Ekolojik Mimarlık ve Planlama Ulusal Sempozyumu, 27-28 Nisan Antalya, s:194-203.
• Haas, G.E. 2001. A Reframing of Visitor Capacity - Park Capacity National Recreation and Park Association Washington, D.C. 68 p.
• Hof, M., 1993. VERP: A Process for Addressing Visitor Carrying Capacity in The National Park System (working draft). Denver, CO: National Park Service, Denver Service Center.
• Kuss, R.F., Grafe, A.R. 1985. Effects of Recreation Trampling on Natural Area Vegetation. J. Leisure Res. 17, 165-183 p.
• Kuss, F.R., Graefe, A.R., Vaske, J.J. 1990. Visitor impact management: a review of research. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association. 256 p.
• Kuvan, Y. 2005. Korunan Alan Yönetiminde Etkinliğin Önemi ve Değerlendirilmesi. Korunan Doğal Alanlar Sempozyumu 8- 10 Eylül Isparta, s:81-89.
• Lime, D.W. 1976. Principles of recreational carrying capacity. In: Proceedings of southern states recreation research applications workshop. General Technical Report SE-9. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Asheville, NC: 122-134 p. Forest Experiment Station,
• Manning, R., Lime, D. and Hof, M. 1996. Social Carrying Capacity of Natural Areas: Theory and Application in the US National Parks. Natural Areas Journal. 16: 118-127 p.
• ORRRC (Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission), 1962. Outdoor Recreation for America. Washington, D.C.: US GPO.
• Parks Canada, 1985. Management Process for Visitor Activities. Ottawa, ON: National Parks Directorate, Visitor Activities Branch. 76 p.
• Parks Canada, 1988. Getting started: A Guide to Park Service Planning. Ottawa, ON: Parks Canada, National Parks Directorate, Visitor Activities Branch. 128 p.
• Parks Canada, 1991. Visitor Activity Concept. Ottawa, ON: Parks Canada, Program Headquarters, VAMP Technical Group. 16 p.
• Payne, R.J., Graham, R. 1993. Visitor Planning and Management in Parks and Protected Areas. In: Deardon, P.; Rollins, R., eds. Parks and protected areas in Canada: planning and management. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press: 185-210 p.
• Pehlivanoğlu, M. 1987. Belgrad Ormanının Rekreasyon Potansiyeli ve Planlama İlkelerinin Tespiti. İstanbul Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, s:288. İstanbul.
• Pugh, D. 1990. Decision Frameworks and Interpretation. In: Graham, R.; Lawrence, R., eds. Towards serving visitors and managing our resources—proceedings of a North American workshop on visitor management in parks and protected areas. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo: 355-356.
• Simon, F. J.G., Narangajavana, Y. and Marques, D. 2004. Carrying Capacity in the Tourism Industry: A Case Study of Hengistbury Head. Tourism Manegement, Vol 25, Is 2 April, 275-283 p.
• Stankey, G., Cole, D., Lucas, R., Peterson, M. and Frissell, S. 1985. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. USDA, GTR, INT-176 p.
• Stankey, G. and McCool, S. 1990. Managing for Appropriate Wilderness Conditions: the carrying capacity issue. In: Hendee, J. C.; Stankey, G. H.; Lucas, R. C. Wilderness Management (2d ed.) Golden, CO: Fulcrum Press: 215-239.
• U.S.D.A. 1981. ROS user’s guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 37 p.
• U.S.D.A. 1990. ROS primer and field guide. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Government Printing Office. 794- 499. 10 p.
• U.S.D.I. 1995. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Denver Service Centre. Visitor experience and resource protection implementation plan: Arches Utah National Park. Denver, CO: National Park Service, Denver Service Centre. 72 p.
• Uzun, S. ve Müderrisoğlu, H., 2010. Kırsal rekreasyon alanlarında kullanıcı memnuniyeti: Bolu Gölcük Ormaniçi Dinlenme Yeri Örneği. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi Seri: A, Sayı: 1, Yıl: 2010, ISSN: 1302-7085, Sayfa: 67-82.
• Vaske, J., Donnelly, M. and Shelby, B. 1993. Establishing Management Standarts:Selected Examples of the Normative Approach Environmental Management.17:629-643 p.
• Wagar, J.A. 1964. The Carrying Capacity of Wild Lands for Recreation. Forest Science Monograph 7 Washington, D.C.: Society of American Foresters USA.
• Wang, B. and Manning, R.E. 1999. Computer simulation modeling for recreation management: A study on carriage road use in Acadia Management Vol.23, No:2, 193-203p. Maine, USA. Environmental