Assessing The Recreational Value Of Gedikli Village In The Context Of Cultural Ecosystem Services

Öz

This study aims to evaluate the perceptions of the rural population regarding cultural ecosystem services and the associated recreational preferences in Gedikli Village, located in the Şarkikaraağaç district of Isparta, Turkey. Based on a participatory approach, data obtained from surveys conducted with 64 individuals were analyzed both statistically and spatially. The areas to which participants attributed recreational value were analyzed in a Geographic Information System (GIS) environment using density analysis. Additionally, chi-square and one-way ANOVA tests were conducted using SPSS to assess the influence of demographic variables, including gender, age, and education level, on recreational preferences. The findings revealed that riversides, natural open spaces, and upland areas were prominent recreational sites, and significant relationships were identified between spatial preferences and socio-demographic factors. In this respect, the study provides an applied contribution to the identification of cultural ecosystem services in rural settlements using participatory approaches and methods, and to their integration into planning processes through data-based analyses.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cultural ecosystem services
• Recreation
• Participatory Approach
• GIS
• Gedikli

Teşekkür

This article is based on the doctoral dissertation titled "Determining the Social Value of Cultural Ecosiystem Services Based on Natural Infrastructures Through Participatory Geographical Information Systems in Rural Settlements" conducted by Yasin Yaman under the supervision of Assoc. Prof. Dr. Seda Örücü. The authors would like to thank TÜBİTAK for its support within the scope of the research project numbered TOVAG 1001-123O036 (EKOMAP), the project team, and the Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Süleyman Demirel University for their support within the scope of the project numbered FDK-2023-9170.

Kültürel Ekosistem Hizmetleri Bağlamında Gedikli Köyü’nün Rekreasyon Değerinin Belirlenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışma, Isparta ili Şarkikaraağaç ilçesine bağlı Gedikli Köyü’nde kırsal halkın kültürel ekosistem hizmetlerine dair algılarını ve buna bağlı rekreasyonel tercihlerini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Katılımcı yaklaşıma dayalı olarak geliştirilen bu araştırmada, 64 kişiye uygulanan anketten elde edilen veriler, istatistiksel ve mekânsal olarak analiz edilmiştir. Katılımcıların rekreasyonel değer atfettiği alanlar Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS) ortamında yoğunluk analizine tabi tutularak mekânsal olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca SPSS yazılımı kullanılarak yapılan chi square (ki-kare) ve tek yönlü ANOVA testleri aracılığıyla, cinsiyet, yaş ve eğitim düzeyi gibi demografik değişkenlerin rekreasyonel tercihler üzerindeki etkisi belirlenmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları, su kenarları, doğal açıklık alanlar ve yaylaların öne çıkan rekreasyonel alanlar olduğunu ortaya koymuş; mekânsal tercihler ile sosyo-demografik faktörler arasında anlamlı ilişkiler tespit edilmiştir. Bu yönüyle çalışma, kırsal yerleşimlerde kültürel ekosistem hizmetlerinin katılımcı yaklaşım ve yöntemler kullanılarak belirlenmesine ve planlama süreçlerine veri tabanlı analizler yardımıyla entegre edilmesine yönelik uygulamalı bir katkı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kültürel ekosistem hizmetleri
• Rekreasyon
• Katılımcı Yaklaşım
• CBS
• Gedikli

Destekleyen Kurum

SDÜ BAP ve TÜBİTAK

Teşekkür

Bu makale, Yasin Yaman tarafından Doç. Dr. Seda Örücü’nün danışmanlığında yürütülen “Kırsal Yerleşim Alanlarında Kültürel Ekosistem Hizmetleri ve Doğal Altyapılara Dayalı Sosyal Değerin Katılımcı CBS ile Belirlenmesi” başlıklı doktora tezinden türetilmiştir. Yazarlar, TOVAG 1001-123O036 numaralı araştırma projesi (EKOMAP) kapsamında TUBİTAK’a, ilgili proje ekibine ve FDK-2023-9170 nolu proje kapsamında Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinasyon Birimi’ne verdikleri destek için teşekkürlerini sunarlar.

Kaynakça

1. Arnaiz-Schmitz, C., Herrero-Jáuregui, C., Schmitz, M. F., & Pineda, F. D. (2021). Integrating landscape connectivity into the assessment of ecosystem services to support landscape planning. Land, 10(3), 343. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10030343
2. Bieling, C., Plieninger, T., Pirker, H., & Vogl, C. R. (2014). Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecological Economics, 105, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.013
3. Brown, G., & Fagerholm, N. (2015). Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation. Ecosystem Services, 13, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007
4. Brown, G., Schebella, M. F., & Weber, D. (2014). Using participatory GIS to measure physical activity and urban park benefits. Landscape and Urban Planning, 121, 34-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.006
5. Chan, K. M., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
6. Fagerholm, N., & Käyhkö, N. (2009). Participatory mapping and geographical patterns of the social landscape values of rural communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Fennia, 187(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.11143/8603
7. Fagerholm, N., Käyhkö, N., Ndumbaro, F., & Khamis, M. (2012). Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments—Mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecological Indicators, 18, 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.004
8. Hausmann, A., Slotow, R., & Di Minin, E. (2016). Conserving the wilderness experience in the face of expanding nature-based tourism. Conservation Biology, 30(5), 874–883. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12677

9. Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Nieto, A. P., Martín-López, B., Aguilera, P. A., Montes, C., & López-Santiago, C. (2014). Spatial mismatches between cultural ecosystem services and biodiversity: A methodological proposal. Land, 3(3), 566–586. https://doi.org/10.3390/land3030566
10. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press. Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2015). Assessing ecosystem services with stakeholders’ perceptions and expectations. Ecosystem Services, 16, 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.06.007
11. Raymond, C. M., Bryan, B. A., MacDonald, D. H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., & Kalivas, T. (2010). Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1301–1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006
12. Riechers, M., Barkmann, J., & Tscharntke, T. (2020). Diverging perceptions by social groups on cultural ecosystem services provided by urban green. Land, 9(7), 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9070244
13. Scholte, S. S. K., van Teeffelen, A. J. A., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecological Economics, 114, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007
14. TEEB. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan.
15. Ting, M., Chan, J. C. L., & Huang, Z. (2018). Exploring regional variations of cultural ecosystem service perceptions using social media data in Hong Kong. Sustainability, 10(11), 4006. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114006
16. Van Berkel, D. B., & Verburg, P. H. (2014). Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecological Indicators, 37, 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.025