Evaluation of the Recreational Potential of Mount Ararat National Park

Öz

National parks provide settings for outdoor recreational activities. Mount Ararat is one of the well-known mountainous national parks for summit climbs and functions as a habitat variety of plants and animals in Europe. Besides its essential recreational and ecological services, the mountain has a cultural and spiritual heritage. With the growth in recreational use, decisionmakers confronted with this increasing complexity and uncertainty about keeping the park maintained sustainably. This study examines the park's recreational potential by analysing its landscape value, climatic value, accessibility, recreative convenience, and negative factor indicators to help decisionmakers make long-term plans. According to the analysis results, Mount Ararat was found as a high levelled outdoor recreation setting with a rate of 63% as predicted. Recommendations and implications were discussed. This study can give managers useful information to plan and design recreational settings that support sustainability in the national park.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Outdoor recreation
• recreation potential
• Gulez Method
• Mount Ararat
• Turkey

Evaluation of the Recreational Potential of Mount Ağrı (Ararat) National Park

Öz

National parks provide settings for outdoor recreational activities. Mount Ararat is one of the well-known mountainous national parks for summit climbs and functions as a habitat variety of plants and animals in Europe. Besides its essential recreational and ecological services, the mountain has a cultural and spiritual heritage. With the growth in recreational use, decisionmakers confronted with this increasing complexity and uncertainty about keeping the park maintained sustainably. This study examines the park's recreational potential by analysing its landscape value, climatic value, accessibility, recreative convenience, and negative factor indicators to help decisionmakers make long-term plans. According to the analysis results, Mount Ararat was found as a high levelled outdoor recreation setting with a rate of 63% as predicted. Recommendations and implications were discussed. This study can give managers useful information to plan and design recreational settings that support sustainability in the national park.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Recreation potential
• Gülez Method
• Mount Ararat
• Ağrı Dağı
• Turkey

Kaynakça

1. Azzoni, R, S., Zerboni,A., Pelfini, M,. C,A,Garzonio,. Cioni, R., Meraldi, E., Smiraglia, C., Diolaiuti, G, A. 2017. Geomorphology of Mount Ararat/Ağri Daği (Ağri Daği Milli Parki, Eastern Anatolia, Turkey), Journal of Maps, 13:2, 182-190.
2. Balmford, A.; Green, J.M.; Anderson, M.; Beresford, J.; Huang, C.; Naidoo, R.; Walpole, M.; Manica, A. 2015. Walk on the wild side: Estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas. PLoS Biol.
3. Berlitz, C. 1987. The Lost Ship of Noah. Putnam Press, New York.
4. Bilgili, M. 2009. Türkiye’nin doğusunda Gemiyi ara, Ararat’ın İtibarı, İstanbul: Bilgili Ajans Yayınları.
5. Brooks, N.1898. The Story of Marco Polo. New York: The Devinne Press.
6. Burton, R. 1995. Travel Geography, Longman.
7. Cırık, M. 2007. “Milli Parklar ve Uzun Devreli Gelișme Planları”, Planlama, 1, 45-50.
8. Clavijo, R. G. 1859. Court of Timour at Samarcand (Çev: Clements R. Markham). The Hakluyt Society.

9. Çalışkan, H., Çelik, A. 2017. “Bursa İli Mustafakemalpaşa ilçesinin peyzaj değerleri ve rekreasyon potansiyelinin belirlenmesi üzerine araştırma”, Uluslararası Turizm, Ekonomi ve İşletme Bilimleri Dergisi, 1 (2), 13-22.
10. Çelik, A., Üzümlü, P.T., Çetin, İ. 2016. “Bursa İli Gölyazı Köyü’nün Açık Hava Rekreasyon Potansiyeli”. Uluslararası Sosyal ve Ekonomik Bilimler Dergisi, 6 (2) 32-40.
11. Çetin, M., Sevik, H. 2016. “Evaluating the recreation potential of Ilgaz Mountain National Park in Turkey”. Environ Monit Assess 188:52. DOI 10.1007/s10661-015-5064-7.
12. Demirkan, G.Ç., Erzurumlu, S.G. 2020. “According to method of Gülez determination of recreational potential of Niğde Atatürk City Forest.” Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research. 7(52), 986-995.
13. Doğanay, H. 2003. “Ağrı Dağı ve Turistik Önemi”, Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi, 9, 171-179.
14. Gül, A., Örücü, M.K., Karaca. Ö. 2006. ‘An Approach for Recreation Suitability Analysis to Recreation Planning in Gölcük Nature Park’. Environmental Management 37, 606–625.
15. Gülez S.,1990. Orman İçi Rekreasyon Potansiyelinin Saptanması İçin Geliştirilen Bir Değerlendirme Yöntemi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, Seri: A, 40 (2): 132–148.
16. Gülez, S.1992. A Method for Evaluating Areas for Natural Park Status, Environmental Management 16(6), 811-818.
17. Hall, C. M., Page, S. 2010. The Contribution of Neil Leiper to Tourism Studies. Current Issues in Tourism 13, 299-309.
18. Hall, M, C., Page S, J. 2006. “The Geography of Tourism and Recreation, Environtment, Place and Space”. Routledge: London and New York.
19. Hong, J. 2014. Study on Urban Tourism Development Based on Experience Economy in Shanghai. International Journal of Business and Social Science 5, 59-63.
20. Kapan, K. 2018. Turizm Faaliyetlerinin Şehirsel Gelişmeye Etkileri: Antalya Örneği (Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Coğrafya Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul).
21. Kapan, K., Yulu, A., Yu, A. 2018. “Filipinler’de Turizm Faaliyetlerinin Tarihsel Gelişimi. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi 37, 144-151.
22. Kaya, F. 2016. “Ağrı Dağı’nın Turizm Potansiyeli ve Değerlendirme Durumu”, Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi 34, 217-229.
23. Kienast, F., Degenhardt B. 2012. GIS-assisted mapping of landscape suitability for nearby recreation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105 (4) 385-399.
24. Kliskey, A.D., 2000. “Recreation terrain suitability mapping: a spatially explicit methodology for determining recreation potential for resource use assessment”. Landscape and Urban Planning 52, 33-43.
25. Kumar.K. 2014. The sacred mountain: Confronting global capital at Niyamgiri, Geoforum 54, 196–206.
26. Leiper, N. 2000. An Emerging Discipline. Annals of Tourism Research 27, 805- 809.
27. Lindberg, K. (1991). “Policies For Maximizing Nature Tourism's Ecological And Economic Benefits”. World Resource Institute.
28. Lynch, H.F.B. 1897. Mountain Climbing, The Ascent of Mount Ararat. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
29. Mahruki, N. (1996), Bir Hayalin Peşinde, Yedi Zirveler Batı Yarıküre ve Antarktika, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
30. Manning, R. E. 2011. Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction (3rd ed.). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.
31. Mieczkowski, Z. 1990. World Trends in Tourism and Recreation.
32. Nunn, P. 1987. Alpine Climbing. n The Climbers Handbook. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
33. Özgüç, N. 2017. Turizm Coğrafyası, Özellikler ve Bölgeler. İstanbul: Çantay Kitabevi.
34. Parrot, W. F. 1834. Reise Zum Ararat. Berlin.
35. Parrot, W. F. 1846. Journey to Ararat (Çev: W. D. Cooley). Harper & Brothers, Publshers, New York.
36. Payne, K., Siobhan, W., Oliva., B. 2002. High Stakes the Future for Mountain Societies, London.
37. Roney, S. A. 2011. Turizm: Bir Sistemin Analizi, Detay Yayın, Ankara.
38. Rubruck, W. 1900. Eastern Parts of the World. (Çev: William Woodville Rockhill). The Hakluyt Society, London.
39. Sarıkaya, M, A. 2011. Türkiye’nin güncel buzulları. Fiziki Coğrafya Araştırmaları: Sistematik ve Bölgesel. Türk Coğrafya Kurumu Yayınları, Sayı:6, 527-544, İstanbul.
40. Sarıkaya, M, A. 2012. Recession of the ice cap on Mount Ağrı (Ararat), Turkey, from 1976 to 2011 and its climatic significance, Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 46, 190-194.
41. Serter, G. 2020. 2002 Sonrası Milli Parklar Kanunu Kapsamında İlan Edilen Doğa Koruma Alanlarına Eleştirel Bir Bakış, Planlama, 30 (2):242–256.
42. Simmons, I, G. 1975. Rural Recreation in İndustrial World, Londra.
43. Somuncu, M. 2004. “Dağcılık ve Dağ Turizmindeki İkilem: Ekonomik Yarar ve Ekolojik Bedel”, Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 2 (1), 1-21.
44. Surová, D., Pinto-Correia, T. 2016. A landscape menu to please them all: Relating users’ preferences to land cover classes in the Mediterranean region of Alentejo, Southern Portugal Land Use Policy, 54, 355-365.
45. Şimşek, O. Alim, M. 2009. “Iğdır İli’nin Turizm Potansiyeli”. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3, 1-26.
46. Taher, S, H, M., Jamal, S, A. 2012. “Determinants of mountaineers' decision to climb: An innovative marketing for mountaineering.
47. Tümertekin, E. Özgüç, N. 2012. Ekonomik Coğrafya-Küreselleşme ve Kalkınma. İstanbul: Çantay Kitabevi.
48. Tyrväinen, L., Buchecker, M., Degenhardt, B., Vuleti, D. 2008. “Evaluating the economic and social benefits of forest recreation and nature tourism”, European Forest Recreation and Tourism, 35–63.
49. Yılmaz, H., Karaşah, B., Yüksel., E.E. 2009. “Gülez yöntemine göre Kafkasör Kent Ormanının rekreasyonel potansiyelinin değerlendirilmesi”. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 10 (1), 53-61.
50. Yulu, A. 2018. “Friedrich Parrot’un Ağrı Dağı Araştırma Keşif Gezisi”. Coğrafya Dergisi, 38, 49-58.