Belgrad Ormanının Sürdürülebilirliği: Potansiyel, Fiyat ve Hizmet Politikası Hakkında Ziyaretçi Görüşleri

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 546 - 563, 28.10.2022

Celal Şenol

https://doi.org/10.18795/gumusmaviatlas.1163163

Öz

Bu araştırma, İstanbul’un kuzey ormanlarının bir bölümü olan Belgrad Ormanı ve rekreasyon alanının sürdürülebilir kullanımının kullanıcılar odağında analizini ele almaktadır.
Şehrin oksijen deposu olan orman, özellikle yerel halkın yoğun olarak spor, aktivite, mangal ile gözlem gibi farklı ilgi alanlarına yönelik faaliyetler için kullandığı yerlerin başında gelmektedir. Bu tür toplu kullanım alanlarında ziyaretçilerin farklı ihtiyaç ve beklentileri olabilmektedir. Bunlardan bir tanesi orman içine yapılacak ücretli tesislerin kullanılma durumudur. Araştırmada ziyaretçilerin mekân kullanım şekli ve yöntemi, ücret politikası, yönetimi ve koşulların iyileştirilmesine yönelik farklı sorular hazırlanmıştır Çalışma sahasında nitel araştırma yöntemi kullanılmış olup, mülakat yapılan kişilerden 193 tanesi değerlendirilmeye alınmıştır. Mülakat sonuçlarında parkı kullananların %68’i memnuniyet belirtirken, soru özelinde bu oran yakalanamamıştır. Ormanlık saha içinde ücrete tabi eğlence sektörünün faaliyete geçmesi konusunda yapılan çalışmada katılımcıların %27’sinin bu amaçlı yeni yapılaşmaya destek vermekte, %73’ü ise ekolojik sisteme müdahale edilmeye neden olacak yapılaşmaya gerek olmadığını düşünmektedir. Ancak orman sahasına yapılacak herhangi bir tesisin ücret karşılığında kullanılmasına ise %74 gibi önemli bir kesim evet cevabını vermiştir.
Genel olarak bakıldığında insanlar ormanlık sahada herhangi bir yapılaşmaya sıcak bakmamaktadır. Fakat ücret mukabilinde kullanmaya onay vermektedir. Bu durum park idaresince gelişim ve uygulanacak politik tutum üzerinde yönlendirici olmaktadır.
Sonuç olarak her yaş grubunun sıklıkla kullandığı Belgrad Ormanın sürdürülebilirliği, planlı yönetim ilkelerine bağlıdır. Bu yüzden ziyaretçilerin istek ve beklentilerinin ekolojik durumla birlikte değerlendirilmeye alınması planlı kullanımı daha anlamlı kılacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İstanbul, Belgrad Ormanı, Sürdürülebilir Kullanım, Sosyal ve Ücretli Hizmetler

Teşekkür

Araştırmacı Belgrad Ormanı idarecilerine ve katkılarından dolayı hakemlere teşekkürlerini sunar.

Sustainability of the Belgrad Forest: Visitor Opinions About the Potential, Price and Service Policy

Öz

This research focuses on the analysis of the sustainable use of the Belgrade Forest and recreation area, which make up part of the northern forests of Istanbul.
The forest, which is defined as the oxygen reservoir of the city, is one of the places that the local people use intensively. Activities for different interests such as sports, activities, leisure time, barbecue and observation are carried out in the recreation area. A large part of the region, which is among the natural assets of Istanbul, is under protection. In the city where the population is constantly increasing, it is of great importance to protect these natural areas and transfer them to future generations. For this purpose, it is very important to plan the sustainable management of the forest area and to take into account the thoughts of the users in this process. In the research, different questions were prepared about the way and method of use of the place, wage policy, management and improvement of conditions. A total of 193 people voluntarily responded to the study. While 68% of them stated satisfaction in terms of general use of the park, this rate could not be achieved in the specific question. In the study conducted on the activation of the entertainment sector, which is subject to a fee, within the forest area, 27% of the participants support the new construction, and 73% think that the ecological system should not be interfered with. However, a significant portion of 74% answered yes to the use of any facility to be built on the forested area for a fee.
In general, people do not look warmly at any structures on the forested site. But the fee gives consent to use it in return. This situation is a guide for the development and political attitude to be applied by the park administration.
As a result, the sustainability of the Belgrade Forest, which is often used by all age groups, depends on the principles of planned management. Therefore, taking into account the wishes and expectations of visitors together with the ecological situation will make the planned use more meaningful.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İstanbul, Belgrade Forest, Sustainable Use, Social and Fee Services

Kaynakça

• Agyeman, Y. B., Aboagye, O. K., & Ashie, E. (2019). Visitor satisfaction at Kakum National Park in Ghana. Tourism Recreation Research, 44(2), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2019.1566048.
• Amuquandoh, F. E. (2017). Tourists’ motivations for visiting Kakum National Park, Ghana. Ghana Journal of Geography, 9(1), 152–168.
• Arabatzis, G., & Grigoroudis, E. (2010). Visitors’ satisfaction, perceptions and gap analysis: The case of Dadia-Lefkimi-Souflion National Park. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(3), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.008.
• Bamwesigye, D., Hlavackova, P., Sujova, A., Fialova, J., & Kupec, P. (2020). Willingness to pay for forest existence value and sustainability. Sustainability, 12(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030891.
• Bateman, Ian. J., Carson, Richard. T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Özdemiroğlu, E., Pearce, D. W., Sugden, R., Swanson, J., & Howarth, A., (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A manual. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781009727.
• Beer, A. R. (1994). Chapter 6: Urban greenspace and sustainability (Developing a more effective urban environmental planning methodology by identifying locallevel actions towards greater environmental sustainability). In H. van der Vegt, H. ter Heide, S. Tjallingii, & D. van Alphen (Eds.), Sustainable urban development: Research and experiments, proceedings of a PRO/ECE-workshop held in Dordrecht, (pp. 69–85). Delft University Press. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A94433265-a60a-4f6a-932c-faca85ccff1b.
• Birinci, S., Zaman, M., & Bulut, İ. (2016). Limni Gölü Tabiat Parkı’nın (Gümüşhane) rekreasyon potansiyeli. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(46), 285–294.
• Brezina, D., Hlavácková, P., & Fialová, J. (2017). Economic evaluation of recreational use of forests roads on the example of Pisek City Forests Ltd. Folia Forestalia Polonica, Series A-Forestry; The Journal of Forest Research Institute, 59(4), 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1515/ffp-2017-0032.
• Bussey, S. C. (1996). Public uses, preferences and perceptions of urban woodlands in Redditch. [Doctoral dissertation, Birmingham City University]. British Library e-theses online service. https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.360089.
• Cetin, M., Sevik, H., Canturk, U., & Cakir, C. (2018). Evaluation of the recreational potential of Kütahya urban forest. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 27(5), 2629–2634.
• Çetinkaya, G., Yıldız, M., & Özçelik, M. A. (2018). Yerel halkın milli park ziyaret nedenlerinin belirlenmesi: Antalya ili örneği. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 32, 135–143. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.424496.
• Chang, C. Y. (1997). Using computer simulation to manage the crowding problem in parks: A study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 37(3–4), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(97)80001-1.
• Cheung, L. T. O. (2016). The effect of geopark visitors’ travel motivations on their willingness to pay for accredited geo-guided tours. Geoheritage, 8(3), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0154-z.
• Cheung, L. T. O., Fok, L., & Fang, W. (2014). Understanding geopark visitors’ preferences and willingness to pay for global geopark management and conservation. Journal of Ecotourism, 13(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2014.941848.
• Cheung, L. T. O., & Jim, C. Y. (2014). Expectations and willingness-to-pay for ecotourism services in Hong Kongs conservation areas. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 21(2), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2013.859183.
• CICES. (2021). Towards a common classification of ecosystem services, https://cices.eu/
• Cole, D. N. (2001). Visitor use density and wilderness experiences: A historical review of research. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-20, 12–20.
• Demirel, Ö., & Pouya, S. (2020). Sürdürülebilir dağ yönetimi koruma boyutu ve kaynak rezervi olarak Ağrı Dağı. International Journal of Mountaineering and Climbing, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.36415/dagcilik.686665.
• Doğanay, H. (2003). Ağrı Dağı ve turistik önemi. Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi, 9, 171–179.
• Doğanay, S., & Alım, M. (2003). Coğrafi Bir Tanıtım: Yedigöller (Uzundere) günübirlik rekreasyon alanı. Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 30, 127–137.
• Doğru, E., & Aydın, F. (2020). Yerel halkın milli parklara ilişkin görüşleri: İğneada Longoz Ormanları Milli Parkı örneği. Lnternational Journal of Geography and Geography Education, 42, 328–355. https://doi.org/10.32003/igge.713418.
• Doli, A., Bamwesigye, D., Hlaváčková, P., Fialová, J., Kupec, P., & Asamoah, O. (2021). Forest park visitors opinions and willingness to pay for sustainable development of the germia forest and recreational park. Sustainability, 13(6), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063160.
• Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi. (1993). Belgrad Ormanı (pp. 148–150). Tarih Vakfı Yayınları.
• Eser, S., & Akgündüz, Y. (2021). Yerel halkın turizm algısı ve toplumsal yaşam kalitesi: İğneada örneği. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(1), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.16953/deusosbil.725665.
• Fleishman, L., & Feitelson, E. (2009). An application of the recreation level of service approach to forests in Israel. Landscape and Urban Planning, 89(3–4), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.10.012
• Fletcher, H. (2003). Manageable predictors of park visitor satisfaction: Maintenance and personnel. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 21(1), 21–37.
• Glover, T. D. (1999). Municipal park and recreation agencies unite a single case analysis of an intermunicipal partnership. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 17(1), 73–90.
• Göktuğ, T. H., & Arpa, N. Y. (2015). Ziyaretçi yönetimi bağlamında Ilgaz Dağı Milli Parkı’nda rekreasyon deneyim kalitesinin saptanması. Kastamonu Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.17475/kuofd.03941.
• Görcelioğlu, E. (1985). Belgrat ormanında tarihi bentler. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(3), 42–59.
• Güner, İ. (2000). Touristic potential of Ağrı Mountain. Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi, 4, 383–390.
• Han, F., Yang, Z., Wang, H., & Xu, X. (2011). Estimating willingness to pay for environment conservation: A contingent valuation study of Kanas Nature Reserve, Xinjiang, China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 180(1–4), 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1798-4.
• Huang, L.-F., Chiang, C.-C., & Chen, H.-C. (2014). Willingness to pay of visitors for the nature-based public park: An extension of theory of planning behavior (TPB). Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences, 35(5–6), 405–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/02522667.2014.903701.
• Kaya, F. (2016). Ağrı Dağı’nın turizm potansiyeli ve değerlendirme durumu. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, 34, 217–229.
• Kim, S. S., Lee, C. K., & Klenosky, D. B. (2003). The influence of push and pull factors at Korean national parks. Tourism Management, 24(2), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00059-6.
• Kocakuşak, S., & Yiğitbaşoğlu, H. (1988). Köprülü Kanyon Milli Parkı’nın coğrafi özellikleri. Coğrafya Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11, 151–156.
• Kruger, M., & Saayman, M. (2010). Travel motivation of tourists to kruger and Tsitsikamma national parks: A comparative study. African Journal of Wildlife Research, 40(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.3957/056.040.0106.
• Kuentzel, W. F., & Heberlein, T. A. (1992). Cognitive and behavioral adaptations to perceived crowding: A panel study of coping and displacement. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(4), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1992.11969903.
• Lawton, J. H. (1998). Nature’s services. Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Animal Conservation Forum, 01(01), 75–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1367943098221123.
• Lee, W. S., Graefe, A. R., & Hwang, D. (2013). Willingness to pay for an ecological park experience. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 18(3), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2011.652970.
• López-Mosquera, N. (2016). Gender differences, theory of planned behavior and willingness to pay. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.01.006.
• Manning, R. E. (2011). Indicators and standards in parks and outdoor recreation. In M. Budruk & R. Phillip (Eds.), Quality-of- life community indicators for parks, recreation and tourism management (pp. 11-22). Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9861-0_2.
• Manning, R. E., & Ciali, C. P. (1980). Recreation density and user satisfaction: A further exploration of the satisfaction model. Journal of Leisure Research, 12(4), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1980.11969459.
• Mustafa, B., Isufi, F., Mustafa, N., Pulaj, B., & Hajdari, A. (2016). Gërmia – From a regional park to the protected landscape. Natura Croatica, 25(1), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.20302/NC.2016.25.15.
• Pan, S., & Ryan, C. (2007). Mountain areas and visitor usage-motivations and determinants of satisfaction: The case of Pirongia Forest Park, New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(3), 288–308. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost662.0.
• Potschin, M. B., & Haines-Young, R. H. (2011). Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective. In Progress in Physical Geography (Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 575–594). https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311423172
• Saayman, M., & Saayman, A. (2009). Why travel motivation and socio-demographics matter in managing a national park. Koedoe, 51(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.4102/koedoe.v51i1.381.
• Sağlam, S. (2012). İstanbul metropolündeki kent ormanlarının kullanım kriterlerinin belirlenmesi ve planlama esasları (Tez No. 316411) [Doktora tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
• Sağlam, S., & Ulaş, Y. Ö. (2011). Kent orman kavramı ve planlama örnekleri. İçinde (Ed. yok), 2011 Uluslararası Orman Yılı Kapsamında I. Ulusal Akdeniz Orman ve Çevre Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı (s.s. 555-568). KSÜ. https://doa.ogm.gov.tr/Yayinlar/Muhtelif%20Yay%C4%B1nlar/2011%20Uluslararas%C4%B1%20Akdeniz%20Y%C4%B1l%C4%B1%20Kapsam%C4%B1nda%20I.%20Ulusal%20Akdeniz%20Orman%20ve%20%C3%87evre%20Sempozyumu%20Bildiriler%20Kitab%C4%B1.pdf.
• Sayan, S., & Karagüzel, O. (2010). Problems of outdoor recreation: The effect of visitors’ demographics on the perceptions of termessos National Park, Turkey. Environmental Management, 45(6), 1257–1270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9500-8.
• Scholtz, M., Kruger, M., & Saayman, M. (2013). Understanding the reasons why tourists visit the Kruger National Park during a recession. Acta Commercii, 13(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v13i1.168.
• Shelby, B., & Vaske, J. J. (1989). Comparative analysis of crowding in multiple locations: Results from fifteen years of research. Leisure Sciences, 11(4), 269–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490408909512227
• Šodková, M., Purwestri, R. C., Riedl, M., Jarský, V., & Hájek, M. (2020). Drivers and frequency of forest visits: Results of a national survey in the Czech Republic. Forests, 11(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/F11040414.
• Stankey, G. H. (1980). A comparison of carrying capacity perceptions among visitors to two wildernesses. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-242. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=-YkJKeOWv3MC&pg=PA1&hl=tr&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false.
• Sturm, R., & Cohen, D. (2014). Proximity to urban parks and mental health. Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 17(1), 19–24.
• Tao, C. H., Eagles, P. F. J., & Smith, S. L. J. (2004). Profiling taiwanese ecotourists using a self-definition approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580408667230.
• Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı. (2022). Sulak alanlar. T.C. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı Doğa Koruma ve Milli Parklar Genel Müdürlüğü. https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/DKMP/Menu/31/Sulak-Alanlar.
• Taşlıgil, N. (1994). Spil Dağı Milli Parkı. Türk Coğrafya Dergisi, 29, 257–268.
• Tavşanoğlu, F. (1952). Belgrad Ormanı yol şebekesi ve bu ormanda rasyonel nakliyat şekilleri. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 88–106.
• Turner, R. K., & Daily, G. C. (2008). The ecosystem services framework and natural capital conservation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 39, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9176-6.
• Vaske, J. J., & Shelby, L. B. (2008). Crowding as a descriptive indicator and an evaluative standard: Results from 30 years of research. Leisure Sciences, 30(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400701881341.
• Veselaj, Z., & Mustafa, B. (2015). Overview of nature protection progress in Kosovo. Landscape Online, 45, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201545.
• Yulu, A., Kapan, K., & Bulut, M. B. (2021). Evaluation of the recreational potential of Mount Ağrı (Ararat) National Park. Aegean Geographical Journal, 30(1), 43–56.