Determining Urban and Rural Perceptions of Forest Ecosystem Services

Abstract

To ensure the sustainability of forest ecosystem products and services, changing people’s perspectives and increasing their awareness of these resources and services is crucial. Determining people’s perceptions and opinions regarding ecosystem services is critical to this context. This study aims to assess the knowledge levels and views of individuals living in both urban and rural areas of Kastamonu province in Turkey regarding forests and the ecosystem services they provide. Data for the research were collected through 97 face-to-face surveys conducted in urban and rural settings. Differences in participants’ opinions based on their place of residence were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. The study results reveal that when people think of forests, the top three associations in terms of importance are nature and wildlife (41.8%), clean air (15.5%), and wild food (7.6%). Regarding the importance of forest ecosystem services, the ranking is as follows: regulatory services (39.2%), supporting services (28.2%), provisioning services (25.1%), and cultural services (7.5%). To ensure the sustainable use and continuity of forest ecosystem services, voluntary payment tendencies per capita are approximately 846 TL/person for the general population, 413.8 TL/person (24,8 $) for rural residents, and 1443.3 TL/person (86,4 $) for urban dwellers in Kastamonu. The total voluntary payment tendency for Kastamonu amounts to 318414942 TL (19066762 $).

Keywords

• Forest
• ecosystem services
• perception
• willingness to pay
• Kastamonu
• Türkiye

Orman Ekosistem Hizmetlerine İlişkin Kentsel ve Kırsal Algıların Belirlenmesi

Öz

Orman ekosistem ürün ve hizmetlerinin sürekliliğinin sağlanması için öncelikle insanların bu kaynak ve hizmetlere bakış açısını değiştirmek ve farkındalıklarının artırılması gerekmektedir. Bu kapsamda insanların ekosistem hizmetlerine karşı algı ve görüşlerinin belirlenmesi önemlidir. Bu çalışmada Kastamonu ili kent merkezi ve kırsalında yaşayan insanların ormanlar ve orman ekosistem hizmetleri ile ilgili görüş ve düşünceleri ile bu hizmetler hakkındaki bilgi düzeyleri belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Araştırmanın verileri Kastamonu İli kent ve kırsalında, yüz yüze yapılan toplam 97 anketden elde edilmiştir. İkamet yerlerine göre katılımcıların görüşlerinde farklılık olup olmadığı Kruskal-Wallis ve Mann-Whitney U testleri ile analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma sonuçları orman dendiğinde insanların önem düzeyine göre sıraladığı ilk üç olgunun doğa ve canlılar (%41,8), temiz hava (%15,5) ve yabani yiyecekler (%7,6) olduğunu göstermiştir. Orman ekosistem hizmetlerinde ise atfedilen öneme göre yapılan sıralama ise, düzenleyici hizmetler (%39,2), destekleyici hizmetler (%28,2) ve tedarik hizmetleri (%25,1) ve kültürel hizmetler (%7,5) şeklindedir. Kırsal alanda en çok önem verilen orman ekosistem hizmetleri doğa ve canlılar (%69), temiz hava (%13,8), yabani yiyecekler (%3,5) ve yaşam alanı olması (%3,5) iken kentsel alanlarda ise doğa ve canlılar (%51,3), temiz hava (%20,5) ve rekreasyon-ekoturizm (%10,3)’dir. Orman ekosistem hizmetlerinin sürdürülebilir kullanımı ve devamlılığının sağlanması ve geliştirilmesi amacıyla Kastamonu halkın gönüllü ödeme eğiliminin kişi başına ortalama 846 TL (50,7 $), kırsal alandakilerin kişi başı ortalama ödeme eğilimi 413,8 TL (24,8 $) ve kent merkezinde yaşayanların ise 1443,3 TL’dir (86,4 $). Kastamonu geneli için toplam gönüllü ödeme eğilimi ise 318414942 TL’dir (19066762 $).

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Orman
• ekosistem hizmetleri
• algı
• ödeme istekliliği
• Kastamonu
• Türkiye

Kaynakça

1. Akgün, M. (1997). Kutadgu Bilig'te İnsan ve Kamil İnsan. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(3), 1-11. Access address: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/114969
2. Alkan, H. and Kılıç, M. (2018). Orman köyleri perspektifinde ormancılık ve salma hayvancılık ilişkileri. 1st International Symposium on Silvopastoral Systems and Nomadic Societies in Mediterranean Countries (pp.14-21). Isparta, Türkiye. Access address: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335602008_ISNOS-MED-2018-Proceedings#page=26
3. Anand, & Bhattacharya, P. (2024). Assessing resident’s perception towards ecosystem services of urban green spaces in Delhi, India. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 31(2), 150-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2023.2261013
4. Asah, S.T., Guerry, A.D., Blahna, D.J. and Lawler, J.J. (2014). Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem services: Human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy implications. Ecosystem services, 10, 180-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.003
5. Atanga, R. A., Kainyande, A., Tankpa, V., & Osunmadewa, B. (2024). Perceived Status Of Ecosystem Services Emanating From A Forest Reserve: Evidence From Atewa Range Forest Reserve In Ghana. Environmental Management, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01933-7
6. Atmış, E. (2004). Ormanlar üzerindeki kent kökenli baskılar ve kent duyarlılığı, I.Ulusal Kent Ormancılığı Kongresi (pp.401-413). Isparta, Türkiye.
7. Ayyıldız, H. and Toksoy, D. (2002). Üniversite öğrencilerinin sosyal-kültürel özellikleri ve gelir-harcama yapısı: Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi örneği. Pazarlama Dünyası, 16(6), 50-57.
8. Balasubramanian, K., & Dwivedi, P. (2024). Using mental model approach for ascertaining socio-cultural perceptions of forest-based ecosystem services among female forest landowners in Georgia, United States. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2024.2312880

9. Bernues, A., Rodríguez-Ortega, T., Ripoll-Bosch, R. and Alfnes, F. (2014). Socio-cultural and economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean mountain agroecosystems. PloS one, 9(7), e102479. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102479
10. Bezák, P., Mederly, P., Izakovičová, Z., Moyzeová, M. and Bezáková, M. (2020). Perception of ecosystem services in constituting multi-functional landscapes in Slovakia. Land, 9(6), 195. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9060195
11. Birben, Ü. and Ünal, H.E. (2020). Kentlinin ormana bakışı: Ankara il merkezi örneği. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(3), 1037-1052. https://doi.org/10.24011/barofd.768769
12. Birben, Ü., Ünal, H.E. and Karaca, A. (2018). Orman kaynaklarına ilişkin toplumsal algının incelenmesi (Çankırı kent merkezi örneği). Türkiye Ormancılık Dergisi, 19(1), 76-82. https://doi.org/10.18182/tjf.394139
13. Çoban, A. and Yücel, M. (2018). Kent planlamasında ekosistem hizmetlerinin rolü. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 6(2), 444-454. Access address: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/451870
14. Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Sutton, P., Van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski,I., Farber, S. and Turner, R.K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang., 26, 152-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
15. Cuni-Sanchez, A., Imani, G., Bulonvu, F., Batumike, R., Baruka, G., Burgess, N. D. and Marchant, R. (2019). Social perceptions of forest ecosystem services in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Human Ecology, 47, 839-853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-00115-6
16. Geray, U., Şafak, İ., Yılmaz, E., Kiracıoğlu, Ö. and Başar, H. (2007). İzmir ilinde orman kaynaklarına ilişkin işlev önceliklerinin belirlenmesi, Ege Ormancılık Araştırma Müdürlüğü Yayın No:46, Teknik Bülten No:35, İzmir.
17. Gouwakinnou, G.N., Biaou, S., Vodouhe, F.G., Tovihessi, M.S., Awessou, B.K. and Biaou, H.S. (2019). Local perceptions and factors determining ecosystem services identification around two forest reserves in Northern Benin. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 15(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0343-y
18. Gunawan, B., Takeuchi, K., Tsunekawa, A. and Abdoellah, O. S. (2004). Community dependency on forest resources in West Java, Indonesia: the need to re-involve local people in forest management. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 18(4), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.1300/J091v18n04_02
19. Harita Genel Müdürlüğü (HGM), 2023. Kastamonu fiziki il haritası. Access address: https://www.harita.gov.tr/urun/kastamonu-fiziki-il-haritasi/380
20. Hassen, A., Zander, K.K., Manes, S. and Meragiaw, M. (2023). Local People's perception of forest ecosystem services, traditional conservation, and management approaches in North Wollo, Ethiopia. Journal of Environmental Management, 330, 117118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117118
21. Hegetschweiler, K. T., Wartmann, F. M., Dubernet, I., Fischer, C., & Hunziker, M. (2022). Urban forest usage and perception of ecosystem services–A comparison between teenagers and adults. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 74, 127624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127624
22. Huber, R. and Finger, R. (2020). A Meta‐analysis of the willingness to pay for cultural services from grasslands in Europe. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71(2), 357-383. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12361
23. İnanç, S. (2019). Artvin kent ormanı ve halkın beklentileri. Turkish Journal of Biodiversity, 2(2), 57-61. Access address: http://dergipark.gov.tr/biodiversity
24. Kastamonu Forestry Regional Directorate (KFRD), (2023). State of forest. Access address: https://www.ogm.gov.tr/kastamonuobm/ormanlarimiz/orman-varligi?View={7c5f9d58-8f6c-4b4b-aa76-4d4bedfaf3bf}&SortField=Kapal_x0131__x0020_Normal_x0020_&SortDir=Asc
25. Korkmaz, M. (2012). Orman işletmelerinde iktisadilik düzeyinin TOPSIS yöntemi ile analizi. SDÜ Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(1), 14-20. Access address: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/148739778.pdf
26. Lele, S., Springate-Baginski, O., Lakerveld, R., Deb, D. and Dash, P. (2013). Ecosystem services: origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. Conserv. Soc., 11 (4), 343-358. Access address: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26393131
27. Lewan, L. and Söderqvist, T. (2002). Knowledge and recognition of ecosystem services among the general public in a drainage basin in Scania, Southern Sweden. Ecological Economics, 42(3), 459-467. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00127-1
28. Lin, J.C., Chiou, C.R., Chan, W.H. and Wu, M.S. (2021). Public perception of forest ecosystem services in Taiwan. Journal of Forest Research, 26(5), 344-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/13416979.2021.1911023
29. Lin, J.C., Wang, P.J., Chen, L.C. and Lin, Y.J. (2008). An analysis of forest ecosystem services cognition by people with different environmental attitudes. Taiwan J. For. Sci. 23: 51–62. Access address: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20083309561
30. Liu, Y. (2020). The willingness to pay for ecosystem services on the Tibetan Plateau of China. Geography and Sustainability, 1(2), 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2020.06.001
31. López-Santiago, C.A., Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Plieninger, T., Martín, E.G. and González, J. (2014). Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: the case of transhumance in Mediterranean Spain. Ecology and Society, 19(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06401-190227
32. Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Del Amo, D.G. and González, J.A. (2012). Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One. 7(6): e38970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970
33. Mathys, A. S., Van Vianen, J., Rowland, D., Narulita, S., Palomo, I., Pascual, U., ... and Sunderland, T. (2023). Participatory mapping of ecosystem services across a gradient of agricultural intensification in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Ecosystems and People, 19(1), 2174685. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2023.2174685
34. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Island press, 5-563. Access address: https://www.unioviedo.es/ranadon/Ricardo_Anadon/docencia/DoctoradoEconomia/Millenium%20Eco%20Assesment%2005%20Oppor%20Business%20Industry.pdf
35. Muhamad, D., Okubo, S., Harashina, K., Gunawan, B. and Takeuchi, K. (2014). Living close to forests enhances people׳s perception of ecosystem services in a forest–agricultural landscape of West Java, Indonesia. Ecosystem Services, 8, 197-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.04.003
36. Obonyo, E., Mogoi, J. and Ongugo, P. (2008). Property rights and forest management: Whose reality counts? A ppolicy brief. Virginia Tech. Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (SANREM) Knowledgebase. Access address: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/898641a0-886e-4c4a-b9d9-f8ad22ff295a/content
37. Orhunbilge, N., 2000. Sampling methods and hypothesis testing (pp. 178–267). Istanbul, Turkey: Avcıol Basım ve Yayın. ISBN: 975-404-511-9.
38. Owubah, C.E., Le Master, D.C., Bowker, J.M. and Lee, J.G. (2001). Forest tenure systems and sustainable forest management: the case of Ghana. Forest Ecology and Management, 149(1-3), 253-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00557-0
39. Özer, M.A., 2001. Derin Ekoloji. Çağdaş Yerel yönetimler, 10(4): 61-79. Access address: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mehmet-Oezer-10/publication/348010287_Derin_Ekoloji/links/5fece32592851c13fed7d3f2/Derin-Ekoloji.pdf
40. Öztürk, S. and Ayan, S. (2015). Management alternatives in national park areas: The case of Ilgaz Mountain National Park. – eco.mont - Journal on Protected Mountain Areas Research, 7: 37-44. Access address: https://www.austriaca.at/buecher/files/eco.mont_%28Journal_on_Protected_Mountain_Areas_Research%29/eco.mont_Vol._7_No._1/ecomont-13-08-%C3%96tzt%C3%BCrk-Ayan.pdf
41. Pak, M. and Berber, H. (2011). Orman kaynaklarının işlevlerine ilişkin toplumsal bilinç düzeyinin incelenmesi: Eskişehir ili örneği. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 161. Access address: https://ofd.artvin.edu.tr/en/download/article-file/25761
42. Pak, M., Özkazanç, O. and Okumuş, A. (2021). Ormanların fonksiyonlarına ilişkin toplumsal bilinç düzeyinin incelenmesi (Kahramanmaraş ili örneği). Turkish Journal of Forest Science, 5(2), 462-477. https://doi.org/10.32328/turkjforsci.958038
43. Pehlivan, Ş.Y. (2023). Pazarı olmayan orman ekosistem hizmetlerinin ekonomik değerinin belirlenmesi. Anadolu Orman Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 141-148. https://doi.org/10.53516/ajfr.1265836
44. Pour, M.D., Barati, A.A., Azadi, H., Scheffran, J. and Shirkhani, M. (2023). Analyzing forest residents' perception and knowledge of forest ecosystem services to guide forest management and biodiversity conservation. Forest Policy and Economics, 146, 102866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102866
45. Purwestri, R.C., Palátová, P., Hájek, M., Dudík, R., Jarský, V. and Riedl, M. (2023). Public perception of the performance of Czech forest ecosystem services. Environmental Sciences Europe, 35(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-00802-8
46. Ranacher, L., Lähtinen, K., Järvinen, E. and Toppinen, A. (2017). Perceptions of the general public on forest sector responsibility: A survey related to ecosystem services and forest sector business impacts in four European countries. Forest Policy and Economics, 78, 180-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.016
47. Rodríguez-Morales, B., Roces-Díaz, J. V., and Kelemen, E. (2020). Perception of ecosystem services and disservices on a peri-urban communal forest: are landowners’ and visitors’ perspectives dissimilar? Ecosyst Serv, 43: 101089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101089
48. Saha, S., Hasan, S.S., Haque, M.E. and Ahamed, T. (2021). Perception based assessment of ecosystem services of Madhupur Sal Forest in Bangladesh. European Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 3(1), 39-44. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejfood.2021.3.1.194
49. Saygı, S. (2016). Çağdaş sanatta doğa algısı ve ekolojik farkındalık. Sanat – Tasarım Dergisi, 7, 7-13. https://doi.org/10.17490/Sanat.XXX
50. Şen, G. (2021). The Effectiveness of the forest certification process in preventing forest crimes and adapting to climate change. Şen, G and Güngör, E. (Edts). In book: Conservation of Natural Resources in the Context of Climate Change (pp.1-7) Publisher: Duvar Publishing.
51. Şen, G. and Güngör, E. (2018). Analysis of land use/land cover changes following population movements and agricultural activities: a case study in northern Turkey. Appl Ecol Env Res. 16(2):2073–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1602_20732088
52. Şen, G. and Toksoy, D. (2006). Türkiye’de nüfus orman ilişkisi. Ormancılıkta Sosyo-Ekonomik Sorunlar Kongresi (pp.108-117). Çankırı, Türkiye. Access address: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338745384_Turkiye'de_Nufus_Orman_Iliskisi
53. Şen, G., Çelik, M. Y. and Ulusoy, T. (2019). A New financing model for carbon emission reduction projects: the use of carbon emission reduction purchase agreements (ERPA) in the private pension system. Alinteri Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 34(2):111-120. https://doi.org/10.28955/alinterizbd.664754
54. Serper, Ö., 2000. Applied statistics II (4th ed.). Bursa, Turkey: Ezgi Kitabevi.
55. Siry, J.P., Cubbage, F.W. and Ahmed, M.R. (2005). Sustainable forest management: global trends and opportunities. Forest Policy and Economics, 7, 551- 561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2003.09.003
56. Son, Y. G., Lee, Y., & Jo, J. H. (2024). Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Forest Ecosystem Services Based on Forest Ownership Classification in South Korea. Forests, 15(3), 551. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15030551
57. Toksoy, D., Ayaz, H. and Şen, G. (2008). Artvin ili orman köylerinin sosyo-ekonomik özellikleri. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi, Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 9 (1-2): 1-11 Access address: https://ofd.artvin.edu.tr/en/download/article-file/25678
58. Toksoy, D., Sen, G., Özden, S. and Ayaz, H. (2008). The forestry organization and its relationship with local people in the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey. New Mediterr, 4, 47-53. Access address: https://newmedit.iamb.it/share/img_new_medit_articoli/239_47toksoy.pdf
59. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK) Nüfus ve Demografi. 2020. Access address: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=Nufus-ve-Demografi-109
60. Ünal, H.E. and Birben, Ü. (2021). Public Perception of Forest in Forest Villages: The Case of Hanönü Forest District Directorate in Kastamonu Province. Anadolu Orman Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 95-106. https://doi.org/10.53516/ajfr.959223
61. Wang, Y., Sun, J., Liu, C. ve Liu, L. (2024). Çin'in dağlık bir bölgesinde algılanan ekosistem hizmetleri ile kırsal kesimde yaşayanların refahı arasındaki bağlantıyı araştırmak. Uygulamalı Coğrafya , 164 , 103215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2024.103215