A Theoretical Review on Cultural Ecosystem Services and Visitor Management in Protected Areas

Öz

Protected areas play a crucial role not only in biodiversity conservation but also in enhancing human well-being through cultural ecosystem services (CES). CES encompass non-material benefits that arise from people's interactions with nature, including aesthetic, spiritual, recreational, educational, and social values. This article provides a theoretical overview of the evolution and classification of CES, focusing on their psychological and societal significance. Drawing on both national and international case studies, the article discusses how CES are perceived, valued, and integrated into visitor management strategies in protected areas. The findings highlight that CES contribute not only to conservation goals but also to sustainable tourism, environmental education, and social cohesion. Accordingly, this review aims to raise awareness about the necessity of incorporating CES into the effective planning and management of protected areas.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cultural ecosystem services
• visitor management
• protected areas
• nature connectedness
• spatial equity.

Teşekkür

This study was conducted without any financial support from institutions, organizations, or funding programs. All phases of the research were carried out in accordance with nationally and internationally recognized ethical principles governing scientific research and publication. As the study did not involve human or animal subjects, ethical committee approval was not required. The authors have diligently adhered to principles of academic integrity by properly citing all sources and avoiding any form of plagiarism or academic misconduct. The data were interpreted with objectivity, and the research process was conducted in full compliance with the principles of academic honesty and the scientific method.

Korunan Alanlarda Kültürel Ekosistem Hizmetleri ve Ziyaretçi Yönetimi Üzerine Literatür İncelemesi

Öz

Korunan alanlar, yalnızca biyolojik çeşitliliğin korunması açısından değil, aynı zamanda topluma sundukları kültürel ekosistem hizmetleri (KEH) ile insan refahı üzerinde derin etkiler yaratmaktadır. KEH, bireylerin doğayla kurduğu etkileşimler yoluyla estetik, manevi, sosyal, eğitsel ve rekreasyonel değerler üretmektedir. Bu çalışmada kültürel ekosistem hizmetleri kavramının tarihsel gelişimi, sınıflandırılması ve insan psikolojisi ile olan çok boyutlu ilişkisi teorik bir çerçevede ele alınmıştır. Ayrıca ulusal ve uluslararası çalışmalardan örnekler aracılığıyla korunan alanlarda kültürel hizmetlerin nasıl algılandığı, değerlendirildiği ve ziyaretçi yönetimiyle nasıl bütünleştirildiği tartışılmıştır. Bulgular, KEH’in yalnızca doğa koruma hedeflerine değil, aynı zamanda sürdürülebilir turizm, eğitim ve sosyal bütünleşmeye katkı sağladığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışma, kültürel hizmetlerin daha etkin şekilde planlanması ve yönetilmesine yönelik bir farkındalık oluşturmayı hedeflemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kültürel ekosistem hizmetleri
• ziyaretçi yönetimi
• korunan alanlar
• doğa ile bağ kurma
• mekânsal adalet.

Teşekkür

This study was conducted without any financial support from institutions, organizations, or funding programs. All phases of the research were carried out in accordance with nationally and internationally recognized ethical principles governing scientific research and publication. As the study did not involve human or animal subjects, ethical committee approval was not required. The authors have diligently adhered to principles of academic integrity by properly citing all sources and avoiding any form of plagiarism or academic misconduct. The data were interpreted with objectivity, and the research process was conducted in full compliance with the principles of academic honesty and the scientific method.

Kaynakça

1. Albayrak, İ. (2012). İstanbul Ömerli havzasında ekosistem hizmetlerine dayalı havza yönetim modeli: Uygulanabilirliğin araştırılması [Doctoral dissertation, İstanbul Technical University].
2. Akten, S. & Gül, A. (2014). Korunan doğal alanlarda ziyaretçilerin olası etki düzeyleri önlem ve standartların belirlenmesi (Gölcük Tabiat Parkı örneği). SDÜ Orman Fakültesi Dergisi (SDU Faculty of Forestry Journal) 2014, 15: 130-139. Isparta. ISSN: 1302-7085, e-ISSN: 1309-2111.
3. Arslan, E. S., & Kaymaz, İ. (2020). Visitor perception of recreational ecosystem services and their role in landscape management of Gölcük Nature Park, Turkey. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 27(3), 202–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1735361
4. Benetti, S., & Langemeyer, J. (2021). Ecosystem services and justice of protected areas: The case of Circeo National Park, Italy. Ecosystems and People, 17(1), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1940424
5. Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63(2–3), 616–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002
6. Clements, H. S., & Cumming, G. S. (2017). Manager strategies and user demands: Determinants of cultural ecosystem service bundles on private protected areas. Ecosystem Services, 28, 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.01.008
7. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., ... & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
8. Crouzat, E., De Frutos, A., Grescho, V., Carver, S., Büermann, A., Carvalho-Santos, C., ... & Bonn, A. (2022). Potential supply and actual use of cultural ecosystem services in mountain protected areas and their surroundings. Ecosystem Services, 53, 101395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101395

9. Daily, G. C. (1997). Introduction: What are ecosystem services? In G. C. Daily (Ed.), Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems (pp. 1–10). Island Press.
10. Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M. A., ... & von der Dunk, A. (2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(23), 8812–8819. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109
11. De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. J. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
12. Gaglio, M., Lanzoni, M., Goggi, F., Fano, E. A., & Castaldelli, G. (2023). Integrating payment for ecosystem services in protected areas governance: The case of the Po Delta Park. Ecosystem Services, 60, 101516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101516
13. Göktuğ, T., & Kurkut, G. (2016). Korunan alanlarda sürdürülebilir ziyaretçi yönetimi: Stratejiler ve araçların incelenmesi. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 118–131.
14. Gül, A., Örücü, Ö. K., & Karaca, O. (2006). An approach for recreation suitability analysis to recreation planning in Gölcük Nature Park. Environmental Management, 37(5), 606–625.
15. Jamean, E. S., & Abas, A. (2023). Valuation of visitor perception of urban forest ecosystem services in Kuala Lumpur. Land, 12(3), 572.
16. Kaya, M. (2019). Ekosistem hizmetleri yaklaşımı ile peyzaj planlaması: Düzce ili örneği [Master’s thesis, Ankara University].
17. Li, J., Li, C., Jiang, Z., Li, C., Tang, H., & Fang, H. (2020). Do protected areas improve ecosystem services? A case study of the Hoh Xil Nature Reserve on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. Remote Sensing, 12(3), 471. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12030471
18. Manning, R. E., & Lime, D. W. (2000). Defining and managing the quality of wilderness recreation experiences. In Wilderness science in a time of change conference (Vol. 4, pp. 13-52).
19. Martinez-Harms, M. J., Bryan, B. A., Wood, S. A., Fisher, D. M., Law, E., Rhodes, J. R., ... & Wilson, K. A. (2018). Inequality in access to cultural ecosystem services from protected areas in the Chilean biodiversity hotspot. Science of the Total Environment, 636, 1128–1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.355
20. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press.
21. Newsome, D., Moore, S. A., & Dowling, R. K. (2012). Natural area tourism: Ecology, impacts and management. In Natural area tourism. Channel view publications.
22. Niz, W. C., Laurino, I. R., de Freitas, D. M., Rolim, F. A., Motta, F. S., & Pereira-Filho, G. H. (2023). Risk modeling in marine protected areas: Mapping habitats, biodiversity and cultural ecosystem services in the southernmost Atlantic coral reef. Journal of Environmental Management, 345, 118855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118855
23. Palomo, I., Montes, C., Martín-López, B., González, J. A., García-Llorente, M., Alcorlo, P., & Mora, M. R. G. (2014). Incorporating the social–ecological approach in protected areas in the Anthropocene. BioScience, 64(3), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu001
24. Peterson, G. L., & Lime, D. W. (1979). People and their behavior: A challenge for recreation management. Journal of Forestry, 77(6), 343–346.
25. Pinheiro, R. O., Triest, L., & Lopes, P. F. (2021). Cultural ecosystem services: Linking landscape and social attributes to ecotourism in protected areas. Ecosystem Services, 50, 101340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101340
26. Pisani, D., Pazienza, P., Perrino, E. V., Caporale, D., & De Lucia, C. (2021). Economic valuation of ecosystem services of biodiversity components in protected areas: A review for an analytical framework in the Gargano National Park. Sustainability, 13(21), 11726. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111726
27. Roux, D. J., Smith, M. K. S., Smit, I. P., Freitag, S., Slabbert, L., Mokhatla, M. M., ... & Mpapane, N. P. (2020). Cultural ecosystem services as complex outcomes of people–nature interactions in protected areas. Ecosystem Services, 43, 101111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101111
28. Smith, M., & Ram, Y. (2017). Landscape experiences and cultural ecosystem services: European perspectives. Ecology and Society, 22(4), 12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09766-220412
29. Vasiljević, N., Stojanović, J., & Doderović, M. (2023). Urban parks and visitors’ motivations: Sociodemographic insights. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 84, 127852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127852
30. Willis, C. (2015). The contribution of cultural ecosystem services to understanding the tourism–nature–wellbeing nexus. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 10, 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2015.06.002
31. Zhang, H., Cai, L., Bai, B., Yang, Y., & Zhang, J. (2023). National forest park visitors’ connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behavior: The effects of cultural ecosystem service, place and event attachment. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 42, 100621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2023.100621