Cultural Ecosystem Services and Recreational Use: A Review Study in Belgrad Forest, Istanbul.

Beyza Sat Gungor

Abstract


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.


Keywords


Ecosystem services; cultural ecosystem services; Recreational use; Belgrad Forest

Full Text:

PDF

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.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.30562/jmrs.v1i1.17590

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Beyza Sat Gungor

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Sustainability is published by Zaikine Research and Consulting Limited, London, UK.