Cultural Ecosystem Services and Recreational Use: A Review Study in Belgrad Forest, Istanbul.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30562/jmrs.v1i1.17590Keywords:
Ecosystem services, cultural ecosystem services, Recreational use, Belgrad ForestAbstract
This paper discusses Cultural ecosystem services (CES) as a part of ecosystem services (ES) and recreational use as a sub issue in the CES. Concepts, perceptions, cultural differences, and historical processes on the subject are explored by examining previous research studies. Explanations are illustrated through a case study of Istanbul’s Belgrad forest. Istanbul is the largest city of Turkey, with a population of over14 million inhabitants. Belgrad urban forest is located in the North West part of Istanbul, approximately 20km from the city center. An urgent management strategy is required to sustainably meet the recreational requirements of the population. Belgrad Forest is a multifunctional forest; it retains a protected status owing to its role in water production. In Belgrad Forest all ES are covered, but recently the recreational function of the forest has gained dominance relative to the other ES. It is operating over its capability from the perspective of CES. Picnicking, jogging, walking, cycling, and sight-seeing are the types of outdoor recreation activities most preferred by visitors. The total area of the forest is 5.442 ha, but the area allocated for recreation activities is just 181.5 ha. This allocated area is insufficient and other service areas are being used due to the high demands. For this review, recent studies and technological tools are examined using research papers and previous studies implemented on Belgrad Forest to identify the optimum management for the recreational requirements with consideration to the sustainability of ES.
References
Arnberger, A. (2006). Recreation use of urban forests: An inter–area comparison. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 4, 135–144. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.004
Asan, U., & Saglam, S. (2012, 15 May). Belgrad forest and Ecosystem’s features. Istanbul, Turkey: Belgrad Forest-Problems and Solutions.
Bagstad, K. J., Semmens, D. J., Waage, S., & Winthrop, R. (2013). A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosystem Services, 5, 27–39. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.004
Bernath, K., & Roschewitz, A. (2008). Recreational benefits of urban forests: Explaining visitors’ willingness to pay in the context of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Environmental Management, 89, 155–166. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.059
Bileling, C., & Plieninger, T. (2013). Recording manifestations of cultural ecosystem services in the landscape. Landscape Research, 38, 649–667. DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2012.691469
Biodiversity Information System for Europe. (2015). Ecosystem services. Retrieved from http://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/ecosystem-services
Brun, F. (2002). Multifunctionality of mountain forests and economic evaluation. Forest Policy and Economics, 4(2), 101–112. DOI: 10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00010-2
Burkhard, B., Crossman, N., Nedkov, S., Petz, K., & Alkemade, R. (2013). Mapping and modelling ecosystem services for science, policy and practice. Ecosystem Services, 4, 1–3. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.005
Cakir, M., Makineci, E., & Kumbasli, M. (2010). Comparative study on soil properties in a picnic and undisturbed area of Belgrad Forest, Istanbul. Journal of Environmental Biology, 31(1–2), 125–128. Retrieved from http://imsear.li.mahidol.ac.th/bitstream/123456789/146339/1/jeb2010v31i1p125.pdf
Chan, K. M. A., Goldstein, J., Satterfield, T., Hannahs, N., Kikiloi, K., Naidoo, R., Woodside, U. (2011). Cultural services and non-use values. In P. Kareiva, H. Tallis, T. H. Ricketts, G. C. Daily, & S. Polasky (Eds.), Natural capital: Theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK., PP: 206-228.
Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A. D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Bassurto, X., . . . Woodside, U. (2012a). Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience, 62, 744–756. DOI: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7
Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012b). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
Colakoglu, G. (2003). Airborne fungal spores at the Belgrad Forest near the city of Istanbul (Turkey) in the year 2001 and their relation to allergic diseases. Journal of Basic Microbiology, 43, 376–384. DOI: 10.1002/jobm.200310243
Constanza, 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, 253–260. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v387/n6630/pdf/387253a0.pdf
Constanza, R., & Folk, C. (1997). Valuing ecosystem services with efficiency, fairness and sustainability as goals. In G. Daily (Ed.), Natures services: Social dependence on natural ecosystems (pp. 49–68). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Crossman, N. D., Bukhard, B., Nedkov, S., Willemen, L., Petz, K., Palomo, I., & Maes, J. (2013). A blue print for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 4, 4–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001
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 of the USA, 109, 8812–8819. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1114773109
De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7, 260–272. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
Guo, Z. W., Zhang, L., & Li, Y. M. (2010). Increased dependence of humans on ecosystem services and biodiversity. PLoS ONE, 5(10), 5e13113. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013113
Hartig, T., Evans, G.W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T. (1997). The PRISM approach to mapping precipitation and temperature. 10th Conference on Applied Climatology, October 20-23, 1997, Reno, Nev.
HEI (Health Effects Institute) Special Report 17 (2010). A Special Report of the Institute’s Panel on the Health Effects of Traffic Related Air Pollution. (2010). Traffic related air pollution: A critical review of the literature on Emissions. Exposure and Health Effects, Boston, Massachusetts, HEI Report Series: WA 754 R432.
Hörnsten, L., & Fredman, P. (2000). On the distance to recreational forests in Sweden. Landscape and Urban Planning, 51, 1–10. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00097-9
Ja-Choon, K., Sun, P. M., & Yeo-Chang, Y. (2013). Preferences of urban dwellers in urban forest recreational services in South Korea. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12, 200–210. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2013.02.005
Konijnendijk, C. (2000). Adapting forestry to urban demands-role of communication in urban forestry in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 52(2), 89–100. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00125-0
López, M. B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Garcia-Lıorente, M., Paloma, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Garcia del Amo, D., Montes, C. (2012). Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE, 7(6), e38970. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038970
Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J. P., & Bidoglio, G. (2012). Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 31–39. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human wellbeing: Current state and trends. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Mohomal, N., & Othman, N. (2012). Push and pull factor: Determining the visitors satisfactions at urban recreational area. Prodecia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 175–182. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.07.016
Niemelä, J., Young, J., Alard, D., Askasibar, M., Henle, K., Johnson, R., Watt, A. (2005). Identifying managing and monitoring conflicts between forest biodiversity conservation and other human interests in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics, 7, 877–890. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2004.04.005
OGM (Orman Genel Müdürlüğü) – General Directorate of Forestry, Istanbul Regional Directorate of Forestry (Istanbul Orman Bölge Müdürlüğü). (1991). Bahcekoy District Directorate Forest Management Plan (Bahçeköy Orman İşletme Amenajman Planı- 1991).
Pickard, B. R., Daniel, J., Mehaffey, M., Jackson, L. E., & Neale, A. (2015). EnviroAtlas: A new geospatial tool to foster ecosystem services science and research management. Ecosystem Services, 14, 45–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.04.005
Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2013). Assessing, mapping and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33, 118–129. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013
Portmann, M. E. (2013). Ecosystem services in practice: Challenges to real world implementation of ecosystem services across multiple landscapes: A critical review. Applied Geography, 45, 185–192. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.09.011
Executive Office of the President (2011, July), Sustaining environmental capital: Protecting society and the economy, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_sustaining_environmental_capital_report.pdf
Riechers, M., Berkmann, J., & Tscherntlche, J. (2016). Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Ecosystem Services, 17, 33–39. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.007
Rusterholz, H. P., Bilecen, E., Kleiber, O., Hegetschweller, T., & Baur, B. (2009). Intensive recreational activities in urban forests: A method to quantify the reduction in timber value. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8, 109–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2009.02.002
Sala, O. (2015). Ecosystem services in grasslands: Paradigm change for supply to demand. Lecture notes of COST Action ES1104 5th Training School in Thessaloniki, April 26-30, Greece.
Sat Gungor, B. (2015, August 23–30). Examining recreational use in cultural services of Belgrad Urban Forest in Istanbul, Turkey. IUFRO Landscape Ecology Conference, Tartu, Estonia.
Speak, A. F., Mizgajski, A., & Borysiak, J. (2015). Allotment gardens and parks: Provision of ecosystem services with an emphasis on biodiversity. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14, 772–781. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.007
Tengberg, A., Fredholm, S., Eliasson, I., Knez, I., Saltzman, K., & Wetterberg, O. (2012). Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosystem Services, 2, 14–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.006
Tennessen, C. M., & Cimpich, B. (1995). Views to nature: Effects on attention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 77–85. DOI: 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90016-0
Tolunay, D., Karaoz, O., & Akkemik, U. (2012, May 15). Natural ecosystems of Belgrad forest and current threats. Istanbul, Turkey: Belgrad Forest-Problems and Solutions.
Uzun, A., & Caglayan, Y. (2012, May 15). Recreational use of Belgrad Forest and problems. Istanbul, Turkey: Belgrad Forest-Problems and Solutions.
Vigerstol, K. L., & Aukema, J. E. (2011). A comparison of tools for modelling fresh water ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 92, 2403–2409. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.040
Villa, F., Ceroni, M., Bagstad, K., Johnson, G., & Krivov, S. (2009). ARIES-Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services: A new tool for ecosystem services Assessment, planning and valuation. 11th Annual BIECON Conference on Economic Instruments to Enhance the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, September 21-22, Venice, Italy.
Vuorio, T., Emmelin, L., & Sandell, K. (2003). Methods for monitoring outdoor recreation and tourism in large nature areas: The case of Södra Jämtslndsfjällen (Working paper 3). Östersund, Sweden: European Tourism Research Institute.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
